Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 260

ASIC is not soft: who's next in line for scrutiny?

Although recent ASIC enforcement action and the Royal Commission have predominantly focused on the financial advice and lending practices of AMP and the major banks, emerging patterns teach us that non-bank lenders and financial advice firms are the next targets.

How do we know this?

ASIC’s approach

ASIC’s modus operandi is to first investigate potential regulatory issues within big targets, where misconduct is widespread and evidence is easy to find. This serves as a learning exercise, helping ASIC to ascertain the nature and scale of misconduct, and what to look for.

Investigation complete, ASIC generally releases a report on its findings and concerns. You’d expect that diligent compliance teams would read those reports, look within for similar problems, notify ASIC of any breaches and start a clean-up.

That’s what ASIC hopes for too. But, if no one falls on their sword – and the past few years have demonstrated how reluctant financial advice licensees are to do so – ASIC brings out the big guns of enforcement.

Naturally, they’ll start with the banks and big targets, who’ve proven easy to make examples of. But here’s the rub. By the time that work is nearing completion, ASIC has a template for investigating smaller players. They know what to look for, where to find it, what questions to ask, with a standard methodology.

ASIC’s methodology

It goes like this:

  • Require from financial advisers a list of clients and information about the advice (s912C notice) and from credit providers, a list of borrowers and information about the loans from the lender (s266 notice).

  • At the same time, require production of policies and procedures dealing with the area of concern (s33/s267 notice for AFSLs/credit providers) and production of policies and procedures dealing with the area of concern of past files or loans.

  • If their concerns are borne out, some recent files may be requisitioned to see if any improvements have occurred, hoping that by now the firm’s compliance team will have acted on the report (s33/267 notice).

  • An optional next step is for ASIC to bring the CEO or other senior managers in for questioning (s19/253 examination).

  • If ASIC finds breaches which have not been voluntarily reported, enforcement action will follow.

So reading the tea leaves to be found in ASIC’s Corporate Plan for 2017/18 to 2020/21, its Enforcement Outcomes report for July-December 2017 and the carnage emerging from the Royal Commission, here’s a snapshot of what advisers and non-bank lenders should be looking for in their businesses. If they don’t, ASIC will!

Concerns with non-bank advisers

  1. Charging fees for no advice - Over 27,000 customers have received a refund of fees charged for ongoing services that weren’t provided. ASIC estimates at least 150,000 more refunds will be required, and the problem is not limited to the banks. Selling grandfathered investment trail commission books must be in jeopardy, even if the government doesn’t legislate to end grandfathering.

  1. Life insurance churning and inappropriately recommending super money be used to pay for life premiums - ASIC now receives regular exception reports on high lapse rates from insurers, from which they’ve become highly adept at detecting bad practices.

  1. Failing to consider whether clients’ existing products will meet their objectives before recommending replacement - The minimum standard requires financial modelling of both options and a clear case for change, all of which is clearly explained in the Statement of Advice.

  1. Inappropriately recommending SMSFs - It’s not just low balances that ASIC is concerned about, as client financial literacy and willingness to manage the responsibilities inherent in an SMSF are just as important.

  1. Recommending services that clients don’t need or don’t value - These could include platforms or simply high ongoing service levels.

  1. Recommending in-house financial products to generate extra revenue when there’s no additional benefit for the client - Vertical integration is not limited to banks. Advisers who operate Managed Discretionary Accounts (MDAs) or Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs) run the same risks.

Concerns with non-bank lenders

  1. ASIC wants to make sure consumers have not been put into loans they can’t afford, don’t understand, or don’t meet their needs. As part of its focus on credit, ASIC will be looking at brokers who do not arrange loans responsibly and lenders who do not lend responsibly.

  1. Brokers are expected to assist consumers to decide whether they can afford a loan, and if they can’t, help them to find a realistic method of achieving their goals. And lenders must not lend to customers if they cannot afford to repay. It’s not sufficient to use the Household Expenditure Measure as a proxy for actual expenditure. Verified evidence of actual revenue and expenses must be analysed.

  1. Interest only, vehicle finance, and high-risk products are a priority. Although home loans and personal loans are not immune, ASIC is especially concerned about interest-only home loans, car finance, and high-risk lending products such as payday loans and consumer leases.

  1. Brokers and lenders must ensure that reverse mortgage borrowers - who are typically older people at or near retirement – understand the costs and implications of taking out these products. The minimum requirement is for these borrowers to be given a Reverse Mortgage Information Statement, and taken through the Reverse Mortgage Calculator in person.

  1. ASIC is preparing to get tough on lenders and lease providers using unfair contracts. It has recently warned lenders to ‘fix up’ unfair contracts immediately or face legal action. Some lenders have already paid heavy fines, refunded repayments, written off debts, or contributed to community programs. Others have lost their credit licence.

  1. Lenders are now expected to have systems in place to identify and reduce the risk of loan fraud. This follows some egregious fraud cases where brokers either ignored forged or false documentation, or worse, falsified information for clients to increase the likelihood of their application being accepted.

  1. The jury is out on mortgage broker remuneration. Commissions and other financially-based incentive schemes have a propensity to incentivise brokers to recommend loans.

  1. Frustrated with its lack of progress in encouraging responsible lending practices through enforcement action, ASIC has taken the radical step of recommending that the industry move away from incentives that create conflicts of interest. This will be echoed by the Royal Commission.

  1. Credit repair, where ASIC will take action against companies that charge consumers exorbitant fees to clean up their credit history or who put them into insolvency rather than negotiate hardship arrangements.

ASIC’s track record is impressive

The criticism that ASIC is receiving in the Royal Commission and the media for being a soft cop on the beat isn’t borne out when you look at the statistics. In the second half of 2017 alone, ASIC’s enforcement actions banned 54 people and companies from providing financial services or credit and instituted 232 summary prosecutions for liability offences and a further 17 sets of criminal proceedings. It raised $21.7 million in civil penalties and $94.4 million in compensation and remediation for investors and consumers.

If you’re not sure whether your business is at risk, or if you receive an ASIC notice, it’s best to get on the front foot.

 

Claire Wivell Plater of The Fold Legal is a leading financial services and credit lawyer. She actively advises both digital and ‘analogue’ businesses on commercial and regulatory issues and is a member of the Federal Treasurer’s Digital Advisory Group. This article is general information and does not consider any entity's circumstances. 

4 Comments
davidy
June 28, 2018

Agree completely the use of EUs by ASIC is weak and disgraceful.....it just shows ASIC continues to be a weak and powerless cop.

Raising $21m in civil penalties is nothing compared to what has been disclosed by the Royal Commission.

Chris
June 28, 2018

This article is little more than a justification for ASIC's inaction and inertia over many years. They've been asleep at the wheel and allowed some terrible things to happen to people, and no amount of reluctant apologies and (almost non-existent) compensation can make up for the damage done to people and families.

Ramani
June 28, 2018

I find the inveterate regulatory use of 'Enforceable Undertakings' (EUs) as an alternative to legal enforcement) might encourage breaches, as a savy (or too savvy by half) company might factor the resulting snacking on public humble pie ("sorry I did it; won't in future; if I do, take me to court and punish me") preferable to punishment here and now.

Funny why those who never did wrong will sign a EU.

Many who get away with EUs will never afford such leniency to those who wrong them: think of a bank that gets off with a EU tellingits defaulting mortgagee, "We will let you go, if you don't default with us again.."

One way to minimise the EU harm would be that both the regulator and regulatee should publish on their website what h appened, why and what si being done to avert future offences - which by law becomes a covenant to future counterparties. The defence community will howl like hell - proving the step has hit its mark.

Frank
June 28, 2018

hopefully every board and executive team not thinking down the regulatory pipeline now does so after reading this.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

ASIC’s outlook on risk and law enforcement

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

3 key risks: banks are too big to behave badly

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.