Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 250

Royal Commission 1: How the tone was set

Commissioner Kenneth Hayne and the Counsels Assisting, Rowena Orr QC and Michael Hodge QC, are doing a fine job at the Financial Services Royal Commission. Their ability to interrogate witnesses under oath, forcing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, has focussed the minds of financial executives in a much sharper way than a chat with ASIC. It delivers ‘gotcha’ moments every day.

The headlines feature fees imposed on dead people, fees-for-no-advice and a cost of 25% of a super balance to transfer to an in-house fund. But more important, Kenneth Hayne has already decided the “chief challenge” is removing sales as a factor in remunerating financial advisers. The key is the link between advice and products. His team is also asking a lot of questions about percentage-based fees and promoting in-house products, and the entire vertical integration model is under fire.

The whole truth?

I have listened to at least a dozen hours of evidence and read many transcripts. While there’s a level of "truth" coming out, is it really “the whole truth”? The Commission has accused witnesses of obfuscation, misleading statements and dissembling. For example, no witness is saying the reason the majors fought for retention of commissions under FOFA was to make more money.

It shouldn’t have taken a Royal Commission to reach the truth. Under section 1308(2) of the Corporations Act, it is a criminal offence for any person to give "false or misleading" statements to ASIC. AMP’s admission that it made 20 “false and misleading” statements to ASIC has become one of the Commission’s flash points.

When the two weeks of evidence into financial advice started on 16 April 2018, most of the first morning was consumed by the impressive Rowena Orr outlining what she intended to show over the coming days. Anyone due to give evidence would have experienced sleepless nights. Before any witness hit the stand, she outlined some of the issues:

“The adviser misconduct covered by these notifications included improper use of customer funds, misleading conduct concerning advisers’ qualifications or authorisations, falsifying customer or compliance documentation, deliberate overcharging of fees, provision of poor quality advice, and failures to comply with disclosure obligations.” 

That was for just for starters. The major banks and AMP were each highlighted for wrongdoing, dispelling the argument that advice problems were due to ‘a few bad apples’.

False and misleading statements

On the second morning, 17 April 2018, Michael Hodge (MH) spent hours taking Anthony 'Jack' Regan (JR), Group Executive for financial advice, through a quagmire of AMP transgressions, counting them off until he reached 20. It became so ridiculous that Jack Regan himself actually added an extra one with an embarrassed laugh:

MH: Well, the suggestion is, first, that a letter went to the client telling them that they needed to contact the external provider?

JR: We know that didn’t occur in all cases.

MH: And that didn’t occur. And second, that the reason then that the fees kept being paid was because the client hadn’t contacted the external provider and AMP hadn’t checked?

JR: That’s correct.

MH: And I think that takes us to 17 false or misleading statements, by my count, Mr Regan?

JR: Well, are you counting that as one or two?

MH: I only counted that as one. Do you think I should count that as two?

JR: I think in fairness, Mr Hodge, you should.

MH: Okay. The 18th false or misleading statement by AMP to ASIC.

Putting shareholders ahead of complying with the law

Clearly, the Commission wanted AMP to admit it had placed profits and shareholders ahead of complying with regulations and its fiduciary duty to clients, and Michael Hodge nailed it.

MH: What we seem to be seeing is that a conscious decision is made to protect the profitability of AMP at the expense of complying with AMPs licence. Do you agree?

JR: Yes, that’s – I believe that’s what that shows, yes.

MH: You say it’s preferencing the interests of shareholders, by that, I take it, you mean at least in the short-term of maintaining the profitability of the company at the expense of complying with the law?

JR: Yes, that’s correct.

MH: Is it in the long-term interests of AMP shareholders for AMP to be maintaining its profitability at the expense of complying with the law?

JR: It is not.

A brief FOFA recap and buying Count Financial at the top of the market

The history of the Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) legislation is essential background and reveals the messy politics that now burdens the Government. Cuffelinks has previously published summaries of FOFA, including this excellent piece by Harry Chemay in 2014.

I worked at Colonial First State (CFS) for a decade until 2012, first as a Consultant then as a General Manager. Although I had no responsibility for financial advice (thank you! thank you!), it dominated conversations at General Manager weekly meetings for many years. Millions of dollars of executive and consultant time were spent on FOFA, starting with a response to the Ripoll Inquiry in 2009. FOFA proposals on conflicted advice and best interests duty were released by the Labor Party in April 2010, the Bill was passed in June 2012 and the law became effective from 1 July 2013. That date receives regular references at the Royal Commission, because it coincides with the ‘grandfathering’ or retaining of commissions paid to advisers (Grandfathering is explained in the next article in Cuffelinks).

Throughout these years, executives with responsibility for financial advice sat on external committees and visited lobbyists and politicians hoping to retain the ability to pay commissions to advisers to sell CFS wealth products. It was the rationale for the vertically-integrated structure: advice, platform and funds management under one owner. The peak of CBA's commitment to driving all parts of the value chain was the purchase of the advice business, Count Financial, in August 2011 for $373 million. According to those close to the deal, the financials depended on Count advisers selling CFS products, but the dream was killed by FOFA.

Inability to defend the vertical integration model

When the Coalition was elected in 2013, it set out to repeal Labor’s FOFA laws. However, the Government led by Mathias Cormann could not get the numbers in the Senate, and the ban on conflicted remuneration and best interest duty remained. Over the next few years, problems at Commonwealth Financial Planning and Storm Financial surfaced, and CBA started to incur massive reputational damage from its advice channels. Other banks exited parts of their wealth management businesses as the dreams of vertical integration started to fall apart.

Combined with other scandals in financial services, these events laid the foundations for the Royal Commission. The Commission has run day after day exposing the weaknesses of the vertical integration model, and not one bank executive has been able to defend it. ASIC’s Peter Kell argued the model is fundamentally conflicted, saying ASIC’s evidence was that most of the bank-owned advice businesses did not operate in the best interests of the customer. It is now widely expected that the Commission's findings will lead to new regulations further compromising the profitability of the model that was once the future of banking and advice.

 

Graham Hand is Managing Editor of Cuffelinks.

4 Comments
Phil
April 27, 2018

Advisers are always in a difficult position. With the exception of cases of outright fraud or deception, advice is only "bad" in retrospect.
Perfectly good advice can still have bad outcomes as all advice is based on assumptions that may not hold.
A severe long-term market downturn market will make all previous advice to hold or buy share-related investments look "bad" when, in most cases, it was simply good advice de-railed (possibly only temporarily) by unexpected external events.

Most of the problems we're hearing about are attributable to executives and remuneration schemes rather than advisers and their ethics. But if the end result is more intense regulation for what is already an over-regulated industry, the good independent advisers will find it harder to survive as compliance costs soar and advice becomes even more expensive for clients.

Garry Mackrell
April 26, 2018

The discussion around fees is also always contentious.
Just as with Loans and deposits, if you try to charge on a marginal/fully absorbed cost plus basis, and apply this to the size of each transaction sum, the effective margin or % fee will vary enormously. The small punter will scream and accuse the service provider of offering low margins for bigger customers.

Alternatively, if it is a flat $ fee for the same service the small punter will still scream!

If you only charge for the upfront service, then I can guarantee there will be no service on an ongoing basis, as there is no incentive to do so.

I am glad I am retired!

Garry Mackrell
April 26, 2018

Graham, I thought the following article by Stephen Bartholomeusz was a thoughtful insight into some of the possible pros and cons of advice models going forward.
I am not sure so-called “independent” advice will be as guileless or as inexpensive or as riskless as people may think will occur.
One example - Scale v non-scale business models are always a major economic challenge, as is regulatory oversight.
I think John Leske’s idea of aligned and non-aligned has solid economic logic but I suspect the need for bloodletting will work against that.

To me, there is always going to be a misalignment of expectation between what people hope to achieve with their investment decisions and what they actually achieve.
Unlike the purchase of products and services which are consumed immediately and hence provides immediate feedback,the value of financial advice can only be gauged after the elapse of considerable time.
As nobody can predict the future, the advice may have been sound but not achieve the objective, or could have been faulty but successful.
Everybody is wise after the event and the weaknesses self evident.
Regulators then build systems to prevent the last disaster, but which probably help create the next one.

Regards Garry.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/what-if-the-royal-commission-s-outcome-is-worse-than-the-status-quo-20180425-p4zbjd.html

Phil
April 26, 2018

I'm not sure FOFA was entirely to blame for the problems with CBA's acquisition of Count. Even without FOFA, the idea of Count advisers switching from, say, BT Wrap to a CBA equivalent was overly optimistic. Count advisers operate essentially independently, making it a tough ask to coerce them into changing product/platform provider. It was always unlikely, regardless of FOFA. Unfortunately, the business case assumed outcomes that few people thought were realistic.

Removing "sales" incentives from the planning process is certainly the "chief challenge", as identified in the article. But this is not a problem unique to financial planning. It's an example of the more general problem of obsession with (supposedly) measurable KPIs which almost inevitably leads to perverse outcomes. This happens to varying degrees across all industries, sectors, and professions, private and public.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Inside view: Will the Hayne Report bring real change?

What you think the Royal Commission missed

Ken forgot it was Kenneth’s stage

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Stop treating the family home as a retirement sacred cow

The way home ownership relates to retirement income is rated a 'D', as in Distortion, Decumulation and Denial. For many, their home is their largest asset but it's least likely to be used for retirement income.

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 433 with weekend update

There’s this story about a group of US Air Force generals in World War II who try to figure out ways to protect fighter bombers (and their crew) by examining the location of bullet holes on returning planes. Mapping the location of these holes, the generals quickly come to the conclusion that the areas with the most holes should be prioritised for additional armour.

  • 11 November 2021

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 431 with weekend update

House prices have risen at the fastest pace for 33 years, but what actually happened in 1988, and why is 2021 different? Here's a clue: the stockmarket crashed 50% between September and November 1987. Looking ahead, where did house prices head in the following years, 1989 to 1991?

  • 28 October 2021

Why has Australia slipped down the global super ranks?

Australia appears to be slipping from the pantheon of global superstar pension systems, with a recent report placing us sixth. A review of an earlier report, which had Australia in bronze position, points to some reasons why, and what might need to happen to regain our former glory.

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

Are these the four most-costly words in investing?

A surprisingly high percentage of respondents believe 'This Time is Different'. They may be in for a tough time if history repeats as we have seen plenty of asset bubbles before. Do we have new rules for investing?

Investment strategies

100 tips from our readers for new investors

From the hundreds of survey responses, here is a selection of 100 tips, with others to come next week. There are consistent and new themes based on decades of experience making mistakes and enjoying successes.

Strategy

What should the next generation's Australia look like?

An unwanted fiscal drain will fall on generations of Australians who have seen their incomes and wealth stagnate, having missed the property boom and entered the workforce during a period of flatlining real wages.

Shares

Bank results scorecard and the gold star awards

The forecasts were wrong. In COVID, banks were expected to face falling house prices, high unemployment and a lending downturn. In the recovery, which banks are awarded gold stars based on the better performance?

Exchange traded products

In the beginning, there were LICs. Where are they now?

While the competing structure, ETFs, has increased in size far quicker in recent years, LICs remain an important part of the listed trust sector. There are differences between Traditional and Trading LICs.

Shares

Should you bank on the Westpac buy-back?

Westpac has sent out details of its buy-back and readers have asked for an explanation. It is not beneficial for all investors and whether this one works for some depends on where the bank sets the final price.

Investment strategies

Understanding the benefits of rebalancing

Whether they know it or not, most investors use of version of a Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA) to create an efficient portfolio mix of different asset classes, but the benefits of rebalancing are often overlooked.

Shares

Six stocks positioned well for a solid but volatile recovery

The rotation to economic recovery favouring value stocks continues but risks loom on the horizon. What lessons can be drawn from reporting season and what are the trends as inflation appears in parts of business?

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.