No compo for financial victims

Groundhog Day at Senate hearing as banks deny need for compensation scheme.

No compo for financial victims

A representative of Australia’s biggest banks has claimed that they ‘don’t see the urgency’ in establishing a last-resort compensation scheme for victims of poor advice.

Speaking at the Senate hearing into the scrutiny of financial advice, the chief executive of the Australian Banking Association (ABA) Steven Munchenberg said there were ‘other ways’ of improving trust in Australia’s financial services system. It was suggested that the bank members of the ABA were concerned about those who have received poor advice in the past making claims from such a scheme.

At the same hearing, Shane Tregillis of the Financial Ombudsman Service stated that 188 people are currently owed a total of $12.6 million from 33 different financial institutions. Clients of the Commonwealth Bank, the National Australia Bank and Macquarie Bank are dependent upon internal compensation schemes to rule whether they will receive restitution for money lost due to poor financial advice by planners from these banks. The Ombudsman estimates the cost to government to set up a ‘last-resort’ compensation scheme would be $800,000.

Learn about the Enquiry here.

Read more at Sydney Morning Herald

Opinion: Dracula in charge of the bank

When Dracula is in charge of the blood bank, it’s highly unlikely he will share anything with you or me. And that, sadly, is the case with our banks.

Yes, it’s true customer losses due to poor advice – or in some cases white-collar crime – run into the millions. In fact the estimate of $12.6 million is probably light-on, as this does not factor in the opportunity cost of that money, had it been invested at a reasonable rate of return, over the years. So we know nearly two hundred people are awaiting compensation that seems unlikely to come their way as the offending institution either refuses to pay or it’s gone broke in the meantime. Add to this the ‘hopefuls’ who are lining up for the internal enquires at the big banks – enquires which are excruciatingly slow and, to date, have paid compensation to only a handful of their clients who were the victims of their dodgy planners.

What is wrong here? It’s simple – Dracula should NEVER be in charge of any bank. We urgently need an independent last resort scheme for those whose life savings have suffered at the hands of the incompetent, the greedy and the downright dishonest planners who seem to find a home in some of our major banks. It’s all very well for the ABA to say they don’t ‘see the urgency’ and that there are other ways to ‘build trust and confidence’. They are wrong.

First and foremost we need a Royal Commission into our financial services industry. The pot of money sitting in super has now reached $2 trillion. This is larger than our GDP – it is too significant to allow those who stand to profit the most to also police the system when it has clearly broken down. It’s your money and mine, so it’s up to us to put pressure on banks that have been shown to treat customers with contempt – or take a walk to another institution, perhaps a credit union with a better record?

What about you? Do you believe we need a ‘last-resort’ compensation scheme? Have you lost money due to poor financial advice? How would you clean up this industry? 





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    10:06am
    The previous government, in the wake of a number of financial disasters where consumers were burned, put protections in place to stop a recurrence of dishonest and corrupt behaviour from financial institutions. When the current government came to power it did not take long for it to dismantle these protections.
    It always comes down to the same thing with the current government: WHO PROVIDED ELECTION FUNDING TO IT AND WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN EXCHANGE?
    The answer is clear: removal of protection for consumers who are again fair game from the disreputable behaviour of the big end of town which cares about profits, not behaving in a moral way. This whole game never much changes.
    Jim
    5th Aug 2015
    11:05am
    Which protections have been removed? This is a genuine question because I simply don't know, the only protection I was aware of that the previous government brought in was the protection to our savings of $250000, is that not still the case or has that been removed?
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    11:11am
    You wouldn't know where anything was, has been, or is now, with this lot ?? :-(
    dougie
    5th Aug 2015
    11:28am
    Mick,
    Somewhere I think that I read or heard that you were the Media Representative for Jacqui Lambie and Pauline Hanson. Is this so or just another bit of befuddled information which is peddled by some on this site.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    11:42am
    Keep it above the belt, boys.
    dougie
    5th Aug 2015
    11:50am
    Trebor,
    Just asking for clarification, nothing else.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    11:58am
    People lost money because of the GFC not primarily because of the banks.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    12:38pm
    The discussion is about money lost through poor or biased investment advice, and even in some case investments made against the wished of clients.

    People are 'losing money' every day with interest fluctuations - perhaps we should include them as well.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    12:47pm
    It's not rocket science but if someone goes to a bank to invest money then they will be investing in the banks products. Some would called that biased but I'd call it common sense myself. People have a tendency to do what it takes to recover money from others even if they themselves are really to blame. They want to blame others even for their own mistakes.
    Tom Tank
    5th Aug 2015
    1:30pm
    The previous government brought in regulation of Financial Advisers to attempt to get their advice to be impartial and not tied to a particular Institution.
    The LNP looked after their banking mates very quickly on that one.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    1:38pm
    I can't see what the problem is with an adviser working for a bank advising on investing in bank products. After all you don't go to a butcher to buy your vegetables.
    Tom Tank
    5th Aug 2015
    2:29pm
    The problem was that the advisers were talking people into products that brought the advisers the biggest commissions and that were not in fact in the best interests of the customers.
    The legislation that was brought in sought to correct that and make the adviser's priority the customers interest and not their's, or the bank's.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    2:48pm
    Common sense will tell you that if a person is paid by commission and not be a fee then they will only recommend product that they will get paid for recommending them. So how is this any different from dealing with organisations like mortgage brokers, compare the market etc who also only recommend products where they get commissions? If this is a problem with advisers then we have problems with any of the third party people who recommend anything.

    This is how commission driven activities work. If you don't pay for advice then how can you expect independent advice? So if these people received advice without paying for it then they have no right to any compensation.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    2:56pm
    Has the Dog caught its Tail yet ? :-)
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    3:00pm
    Sounds like it has for some people.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    4:49pm
    For the record, the previous government sought to legislate that financial advisers (FA's) advice must be in the best interests of the consumer, amongst other things. this was very quickly consigned to the rubbish bin by the current "government".
    Dougie, given the tart manner in which you took to Micks perfectly reasonable observations, were you a speech writer for Matthias Corman in some previous existence?
    Bonny, your financial naivete and innocence are truly touching. You have clearly never heard of "twisting" aka "churning". Because FAs for life insurance type investment products receive more than the first year's premium as their initial commission it pays them to encourage consumers to cancel their existing policy every 3 years and switch to a new product. The new products will almost invariably be those giving the highest commissions which may or may not be ones best serving the consumers interests. Comments assume that the FA does not "borrow" the premiums on their way to the FI issuing, or believed by the consumer to be issuing the product.
    having in the past been responsible for arranging Professional Indemnity insurance for FAs, and deal with claims, my advice would be to seek out a FA with whom you feel comfortable, and whose advice appears sensible, agree with him to remunerate him/her by a fee payable at an agreed hourly rate and that all commissions be rebated to you. These will generally be found to be independent operators and not those employed by Fin. Instns.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    5:11pm
    Now you know why I never had life insurance. Atleast the first year of some life insurance products used to go the adviser recommending them. So yes I am well aware of churning and the effects it has on one's returns. Some managed funds and super funds are masters of this and I'm not talking about the life insurance aspects of them either. It's is now over 30 years since I invested in any sort of managed fund and nearly 20 years since I converted my super to a SMSF. I guess I wasn't prepared just to receive the scraps if any after everyone else had been paid. If that is being financially naive I'm just loving it.

    Like everything else in life there is no free lunch with FAs and anyone who invested on such free advice was indeed naive and foolish as they broke that golden rule of life.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    8:59pm
    Good post Grumpy. Pretty well says it all.
    What is comes down to is that he previous government made a concerted effort to introduce accountability to stop fraudulent behaviour from the financial services industry. Abbott and his cronies killed the accountability off when they gained power. Well that is the banks paid back for their election funding. Now for the next scandal where investors will again be targeted.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    9:59pm
    Labor scheme was so unworkable that no one could give anyone any advise without being sued for it. Not a good situation at all.
    dougie
    6th Aug 2015
    10:02am
    Grumpy.
    In no way did I criticise Mick or his post, I purely asked the question as he has in the past cited myself and others as being trolls for the Abbott Government. I know that I am not as I speak my mid as I see things and they are in no way governed by any political bias. Yet I am still called a troll. All I have asked Mick to do is to deny the message that I have seen or heard. If he does this well and good, if not one draws ones own conclusions. If you give it you must take it is my motto and I try hard to respect each posters right to voice an opinion without name calling or labelling them. Perhaps others should do the same.
    Adrianus
    6th Aug 2015
    11:07am
    If the products weren't in the best interest of the customers Tom Tank then it begs the question.....when did this become apparent? When the returns/yields were heading north or south?
    Adrianus
    6th Aug 2015
    11:20am
    mick gee if only we had the Labor comedy team (and I use that word in the comical sense) back in none of these problems would happen.
    When did these problems occur? Awe gee, that's right at the end of the Comedy team's term. We decided we needed adults in government, remember?
    LiveItUp
    6th Aug 2015
    11:46am
    I agree Frank there were no problems when the returns were heading north. It was only after they took a U turn and headed south at a faster rate that the problems emerged.
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    4:05pm
    dougie: my observations come from posts when they are illogical, incorrect, and pro one party no matter what the true facts are. I have stated repeatedly that Frank shows all of the signs and turns everything into anti Labor and anti union irrespective of the facts. That only leads to one place.
    I note that some of your recent posts are more balanced and that is always appreciated. Whilst I welcome all sensible debate based on FACTS I do have to say that I hate the current government with a passion and that this has nothing to do with my political alignment but rather my philosophical position and what I still believe in: A FAIR GO FOR AVERAGE AUSTRALIANS.
    Hope my position is understood. I do not mean to be offensive at times and do accept the views of others....as long as this is not blatant propaganda. Hence my bagging of Frank, who is what he is. Cheers.
    dougie
    6th Aug 2015
    4:24pm
    Mick,
    I accept what you say as your belief and that you are proud to stand by it. I do not think that I have ever been one sided in my posts, just expressing an opinion which from time to time you have seen fit to criticise and carp about being a troll. I do not know Frank nor do I know his political ideology but I do believe that he warrants the ability to state his argument without a bully boy reply or the constant harping on being a troll. Just a bit of fair minded Australian way of life. In my belief you should lay off calling people trolls and accept that they have a much right to express their views as you do.
    PS. You still haven't denied the rumour that you are the media representative of a couple of fairly radical politicians who in my book have a right to express their opinion as they see it and I do no deny them this right.
    dougie
    6th Aug 2015
    4:24pm
    Mick,
    I accept what you say as your belief and that you are proud to stand by it. I do not think that I have ever been one sided in my posts, just expressing an opinion which from time to time you have seen fit to criticise and carp about being a troll. I do not know Frank nor do I know his political ideology but I do believe that he warrants the ability to state his argument without a bully boy reply or the constant harping on being a troll. Just a bit of fair minded Australian way of life. In my belief you should lay off calling people trolls and accept that they have a much right to express their views as you do.
    PS. You still haven't denied the rumour that you are the media representative of a couple of fairly radical politicians who in my book have a right to express their opinion as they see it and I do no deny them this right.
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    7:14pm
    Come on dougie. Are you for real? Media representative???? Give up the booze mate.
    You miss the whole point. Some of your posts ARE NOT FAIR DINKUM and the views expressed are propaganda. Nothing to do with a point of view. This is not what a discussion is.
    If I call you to be a troll then it is because you, like Frank, post propaganda designed to get people to vote for this government.
    dougie
    7th Aug 2015
    8:06am
    Mick,
    My request was just for clarification and you have now given that clarification which was all that was asked.
    Even with my statement of not having a political bias you choose to call me a troll and that my postings are propaganda which is not true and I have in fact advised my local conservative pollie not to expect me to vote for him at the next election. What I do in my posts Mick is to say it as I see it not to stir but just to put my thoughts in the circle for comment and thought. What is more I do not get on the booze as you suggest so it would appear that your thoughts on me are not well researched or based on fact but just your personal assumptions.
    dougie
    7th Aug 2015
    8:06am
    Mick,
    My request was just for clarification and you have now given that clarification which was all that was asked.
    Even with my statement of not having a political bias you choose to call me a troll and that my postings are propaganda which is not true and I have in fact advised my local conservative pollie not to expect me to vote for him at the next election. What I do in my posts Mick is to say it as I see it not to stir but just to put my thoughts in the circle for comment and thought. What is more I do not get on the booze as you suggest so it would appear that your thoughts on me are not well researched or based on fact but just your personal assumptions.
    particolor
    7th Aug 2015
    9:33am
    I think You Drink !
    Is a nasty aspersion on the Net !
    But I've seen far worse ! :-) :-)
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    10:06am
    The same as our Over Indulgent Government ! Sack Em All, Pay off the National Dept. and get some Sensibility back into this Country that was Once Proud and Independent !!
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    10:11am
    I'm not hiding now ! This Country needs a Good Shake Up from TOP to Bottom ! Weed out all the filth and Start again with some GOOD HONEST PEOPLE !!! If We can find any Left ! :-(
    Patriot
    5th Aug 2015
    10:12am
    CLAP, CLAP, CLAP . . . . . . .
    Reeper
    5th Aug 2015
    11:27am
    Duh! How can you turn a banking question into a very dumb political comment. I guess your carer left the room for a minute.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    11:30am
    Who sold the Commonwealth Bank ? The Janitor ? Nothing to do with the Government ...
    Patriot
    5th Aug 2015
    12:06pm
    particolor
    An even more pressing Question: "Who bought the Commonwealth when it was for sale?" Those who did paid for an asset they already OWNED.
    It was OURS to start with!!!
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    12:12pm
    And You don't think I noticed all this SKUNKERY !! :-(
    Want some Telstra Shares Cheap ? :-)
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:02pm
    particolor: your original post used the all important word...INDEPENDENT!! When will voters wake up and sack both sides. We would all be shocked at how well Independents could run the nation.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    9:37pm
    I want to see a Parliament full of anything but Programmed Robots !! :-)
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    9:38pm
    I just couldn't resist Telstra shares when they were under $3 myself but at well over $6 now I'm getting ready to sell the next batch of them.
    Anonymous
    6th Aug 2015
    9:40pm
    I'd sell too if they only accrued that much including compound inflation over those years.... that's a very poor rate of increase.

    Oh - re the discussion above - Reeper is what is termed a troll or flamer - see his comment above.
    LiveItUp
    7th Aug 2015
    4:23pm
    Telstra have more than doubled in 4 years plus dividends which is just a little better than interest investments.
    Golden Oldie
    5th Aug 2015
    10:25am
    Vote for Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck at the next election, and under no circumstances go to banks, or insurance companies owned by the banks, for financial advice.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    10:29am
    Much Better Financial Advice is available from a Struggling Pensioner or Over 50 Genuine Job Seeker ! See a Local Member ! :-)
    Adrianus
    6th Aug 2015
    11:14am
    Is that your financial advice Golden Oldie? Thanks for that.
    particolor
    6th Aug 2015
    2:19pm
    And Mickey Mouse said " What do you think Pluto ? Should we get some Financial advice from Uncle Scrooges Bank/" :-)
    wally
    5th Aug 2015
    11:10am
    Those who are the directors of the big banks (and other large corporations) depend on the support of the share holders in those businesses for keeping their jobs (and their snouts in the corporate trough). If profits fall, their performances are scrutinised at the company's AGM. If they are found to have failed to have performed to the satisfaction of the majority of the stockholders, they get sacked.

    With this in mind, is it any wonder that the bosses of Australia's biggest banks are willing to squeeze as much money as possible out of their customers? The notions that (1) the customer is always right and (2) loyalty to a bank you have always done business with will be repaid in recognition of your loyalty, are no more.

    For example, look how the big banks are treating farmers in the drought affected areas these days. Years of making mortgage payments by the farmers count for nothing in these times of corporate greed when the banks are prepared to foreclose on the properties and boot the farmers off the land. This is especially so when cashed up buyers from overseas show interest in acquiring these properties.

    Is it any wonder that the big banks are willing to rip off their customers in these times in the "Land of the Bottom Line"? The interests of the shareholders in the banks come before the interests of the customers. The old adage "Let the Buyer Beware" has never been truer.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    4:54pm
    wally you overlook the fact that some of the biggest, most passive shareholders in the banks are funds run by other financial institutions.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:12pm
    wally: a couple of things you might consider:

    1. CEOs are normally on performance bonuses. They get dirt cheap options which are in the money if the price of the underlying (bank) share rises. This happens when banks make bigger profits and pay out bigger dividends.
    2. banks have always been bastards. At least the fine print in documentation is all one sided and banks have no conscience or understanding if you do not meet your commitment. What is disgraceful is they are allowed to sell up assets to cover their loan at values well under their real value. Unconscionable!
    3. CEOs win both ways. If bank profits fall you get the 'you need to pay well to get good management' and if profits rise you get 'good management needs to be (highly) rewarded' What you never hear about is the cyclical nature of many businesses. That is their share price rises or falls as an industry no matter which organisation it is.
    Jim
    5th Aug 2015
    11:10am
    The banks and other financial institutions are making billions in profit each year, yet our returns are going south at an alarming rate, I know the official interest rate is 2% but credit card rates are anywhere from 13% to over 20% someone needs to ask the question WHY is this allowed to happen.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    2:58pm
    Id seek some Independent Financial Advice on that one Dim !! :-)
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    3:05pm
    I think credit cards are wonderful myself. I can use the banks money and earn lots of lovely reward points and because the bank automatically pays out what I owe on the due date it costs me nothing. Meanwhile I can earn interest on that money as well. Credit cards make me money.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    4:59pm
    Bonny, there is a certain self-satisfied smugness in your comments. Consider this; The same banks which charge those less fortunate than you (probably 60% of the population) who do not have the means to clear their credit card balance monthly are a rate of interest 10 times what they will give you for the use of your savings are the same ones refusing to lend to pay day lenders because to do so would associate them with lenders who charge exorbitant interest rates, and that might damage the reputation of the banks a s good corporate citizens.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    5:29pm
    The banks can't be blamed because people have big credit card debts. They didn't spend the money. Years ago I learnt that matches were a great tool but a bad master. This is what credit cards are. They will burn you like fire if you let them. However in the right hands they are a great tool.

    Credit cards are unsecured so one expects to pay a high interest on them. I don't understand why anyone would be paying 20% interest on a credit card when there are credit cards in the market with interest rates of less than 10%. I recently looked these up for a young lady who wanted to buy a car and the maths gave the credit card the thumbs up over a car loan. She now deposits her wages into her credit card account and pays everything with her credit card. She rang me a few days ago and can't believe how quickly she paying off her loan.
    KSS
    5th Aug 2015
    8:49pm
    Grumpy, if someone can't afford to pay their credit card bill each month, they can't afford to have a credit card at all. Its all borrowed money and eventually has to be paid back. As Bonny said, it amounts to free credit but only once you repay the 'loan'.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:17pm
    Bonny: not sure if you are all there dear. Some of your comments are blond at the very least and plain dumb at best. Occasionally you say something which is on the money. Rarely!
    Your "wonderful" credit card points are no more than made up for with higher fees and interest rates. Nothing is for nothing. In the end user ALWAYS pays.
    Credit cards are like two penny bungers in the hands of children...lethal if you are not capable of using them to YOUR advantage.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    9:33pm
    Sorry to disappoint but I'm no way blond. Your comments tell me Mick that you can't see the things I do and therefore don't have the ability to use them to your advantage. If only you could think outside the square your life would be so much richer for it. I agree with KSS if you can't pay your credit card in full each month you shouldn't have one.

    I also avoid using my credit card if there are extra fees to use it. For example I don't pay for airline tickets where airlines impose fees way above what it really costs them. There is not point collecting points where you pay for in fees than the points are worth.
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    4:08pm
    You appear to be quite shallow bonny. Blond? Methinks so. My opinion for what it is worth, nothing more!
    FYI - I am not a down and outer and I do have good quality of life.
    fearlessfly
    5th Aug 2015
    11:12am
    Australia has this fetish about seeking Financial Advice, it's got to the point where you can't wipe your backside without "seeking financial advice". After 16 years in Australia it still staggers me the number of dipsticks that go racing off to these maggots to seek atrocious financial advice.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    11:21am
    Dear Customer.. The WELCOME Mat at the entrance to the bank will now be replaced with a COME IN SUCKER Mat ,There will be a Moderate 2% charge placed on Your accounts for the cost of this replacement ! :-) Thank You .....
    roy
    5th Aug 2015
    12:13pm
    Never never never never go to a bank for "financial" advice, always go to an independent financial adviser.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    2:08pm
    Good luck in finding an independent financial adviser as I believe about 95% are owned by institutions.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:00pm
    Or in Long Bay ! :-)
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:18pm
    Better known as the 'I couldn't be bothered putting in the time to do it myself' syndrome.
    meg
    5th Aug 2015
    11:19am
    There was no protection in place with last government.There are so many people requiring some sort of assistance but regulatory bodies and the legal systems are a farce as those of us in need have experienced
    We are all unaware that the system is not there for us until we experience the debilitation of being stripped of your assets and lifestyle
    Not even family and best friends understand and thats if you haven't lost them aswell
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    11:46am
    You've hit upon one area of serious injustice here, Meg - that the protection of the law is only really available to those with money - the rest are treated (as I've stated elsewhere) as vassals of the State and serfs to be chastised at whim to ensure they do get too 'uppity', and the entire focus of 'law' is on that end - not the equal protection of the citizenry as mandated by Law.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    11:53am
    You only lose Friends when Your Broke if they weren't a Friend in the first place !
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    5:05pm
    Spot on Trebor. I have for years defined the law as no more than a dispute resolution mechanism for the wealthy and powerful. let us not forget that Julie Bishop was instrumental in representing James Hardie in implementing the strategy of spinning out the expensive legal process to fight mesthelioma victims to a financial standstill or death, whichever came first.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    5:32pm
    The law is for everyone and not just for the wealthy and powerful.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    6:08pm
    Bonny you are espousing the highly laudable theory. The practice is very different. Only the well heeled can afford to fight a case through the civil courts. Unless they can interest one of the litigation funders, in which they will surrender half or more of whatever they are awarded.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    7:31pm
    Earlier this year I had a court case in which I represented myself which was ruled in my favour after 2 court attendances. I am not wealthy but I knew I was in the right so rather than just give in to pressure like most people I took the opportunity to defend my rights in court. I would have no hesitation in doing it again as it's really just like any other game.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:24pm
    meg: you are correct. Almost all of our statutory government bodies have become shopfronts which do nothing. When you put in a legitimate complaint (if you can even find an email address on their websites) you get back a letter in the mail full of BS. It is sickening. Instead of doing the job the organisations are set up to do you just get a public servant talking gobbledygook to justify his/her job rather than fix something which is clearly broken.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    9:51pm
    No public servant gets away with gobbledygook with me. I keep pushing until I get results. I don't understand why other people don't do the same.
    Gazza51
    5th Aug 2015
    11:20am
    As the Opinion Piece alluded to, some of these actions are, or close to, white collar crime. As such, the perpetrators peddling bad advice should be given mandatory gaol sentences along with their first and second level line managers that allow or promote this activity - they should certainly be stripped of any financial gain they have made.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    12:42pm
    So you are saying if an adviser advises one to invest on the prevailing market conditions and those market conditions change this is white collar crime?
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    1:27pm
    Bonney, Not what was happening. These people were signing peoples signatures, altering documents afterwards and a heap of other things. That is what was criminal not the bad advice.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    1:27pm
    Bonney, Not what was happening. These people were signing peoples signatures, altering documents afterwards and a heap of other things. That is what was criminal not the bad advice.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    1:57pm
    This may have happened in a few cases but the bulk of the problems stem from people investing their money in one set of market conditions only to see those market conditions deteriorate badly which was why they lost money. Without the GFC I very much doubt if this would now be an issue at all.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    5:09pm
    Bonny, I have been involved in the Professional Indemnity insurance claims. These goings on happen far more frequently than you will ever hear about. The experience was so bad that at one time the insurance scheme for FA's ended up with only one insurer.....12 months on and they wanted out!
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    7:45pm
    The goings on happen because people lose money and look for someone to blame even if it is themselves to blame.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:30pm
    You are so stupid bonny. Sorry for the directness but your posts continue to annoy with their lack of understanding (??) and comments which avoid the issues rather than address them. If you are going to comment then please get up to speed.
    You are spot on the money Gazza51 and Wstaton. In the case of the Commonwealth Bank advisers who were instructed (in writing~!!) NOT to invest in high risk products were ignoring instruction and doing precisely what they were told not to do. After that there were apparently signatures forged and documents shredded so that the culprits could escape accountability. And much more. IT IS A ROTTEN ROTTEN BARREL. Nothing to do with getting advice and then doing something else.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    9:45pm
    I do understand the problem very well and know that people when they lose money will do anything to get it back including stretching the truth. This is what all this is really about. Human nature and their reluctance to take the blame for their own actions. What rubbish forging signatures and shedding documents is.
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    4:10pm
    You are showing your ignorance bonny. The 4 Corners program had a documentary on the CBA scandal and they had the evidence that indeed DOCUMENTS WERE SHREDDED AND SIGNATURES WERE FORGED.
    You live in a make believe world. Get real!
    LiveItUp
    7th Aug 2015
    3:10pm
    I too saw that ABC show and saw it for what it was. A former CBA employee who had a gripe with the CBA nothing more.

    5th Aug 2015
    11:42am
    Just a simple question - what is equation between establishing an insurance scheme as a last resort for people and establishing trust? Surely you establish trust as a personal responsibility - then you install a last ditch defence.

    You can establish trust by having in place scrutiny, training and personal liability for wrongdoing - but you can't repay people who've been badly mislead by YOUR people with trust that buys nothing.

    Don't piss in my ear and tell me the rain is falling sideways.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:33pm
    And that is what the big end of town routinely do so that complainants go away and so that the next batch come on in.
    So in whose interests does big business work and who in government looks after it?
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    11:52am
    What everyone is forgetting is that if the GFC had not happened would these people have lost money? So to me this financial disaster has little to do with the banks and a lot to do with the world financial markets. The people I know personally that have been effected did so knowing the risks and today are looking for someone to blame other than themselves.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    12:15pm
    Bonney what has the GFC got to do with some planners ripping people off. Apart from the fact that the GFC was caused by some financial dudes using nefarious practices.

    This was borne out by the heavy fines given to quite a few financial institutions in the USA. At least the USA bounced them.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    12:24pm
    It has a lot more to do with the GFC than it does the banks. The banks like a lot of other advisers invested people's money based on historical returns and these returns changed considerably after the GFC. This is where the majority of the problems lie not the advice given. It is only after the GFC hit that the advice given has with the benefit of hindsight been seen as bad advice.

    Mr hindsight may be a wonderful thing but none of us can use it. I just wish people would stop trying to blame innocent advisers for something that happened outside their control.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    5:18pm
    Bonny in a previous post I referred to your touching naivete and innocence. I fear I must now add ignorance of matters financial.
    As soon as you go near a FA you will hear the mantra; results cannot be guaranteed and past performance is no guide to future performance. So on that score exit the role of the GFC in FA's culpability. This is not where the majority of the problems lie. The problems lie in a system which offers opportunities to FAs to line their pockets at the expense of others by recommending product which enrich them and beggar consumers, or the opportunity for straightforward theft or fraud. I have said before these are much more common than GFC based losses and you will never hear about them because FAs, their principals and their insurers will settle without going near a court. The consumer will almost never get back all they lost in such cases, or may be fought to a financial standstill by the Fas, FIs and insurers.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    5:48pm
    So how is this different besides the amount of money involved than someone taking a recommendation from a third party on say house insurance? They too only recommend what they will get paid to recommend.

    As with a lot of problems faced by companies many things are settled out of court to protect the reputation of the company with the company in many cases in the right. Same can be said of the FA industry. I've lost count of the number of times this has happened to me as a consumer. I've also taken court action and even ended up in court. I just played it to win as I would any other game like the professionals do.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    6:01pm
    Grumpy, you are right about the above. The GFC was initiated by banks lending to subprime borrowers, the first unstable domino. Disputes with FAs (funny, I just realised what you see is oftentimes what you get - FA) are many times also settled with the super provider's (fund's) complaints department for their own or independent advisors handling their product. If settled this way, the complaint doesn't even cross the Financial Omsbudman Services' desk - keeping not only the advisor's name out of the media, but also that of the fund. (I hope I don't get accused of "whinging" with this comment.)
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    6:14pm
    Bonny, when I was involved, insurance was very different, and I believe has not changed. The then Insurance Agents and Brokers Act 1984 had specific requirements that a broker must act in the best interests of his client. failure to do so was a criminal offence punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. If the broker ran a binding authority he became the agent of the insurer and had to specifically advise the intending insured accordingly. I do not believe these provisions/duties have changed.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    8:09pm
    Grumpy was you involved in the midnight changeover of money in certain managed funds to income based funds after the crash of 87? If you were you will know what I am talking about. My agent at the time did this for all his clients.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:35pm
    Another stupid post. We are talking about people who lost money BECAUSE OF FRAUDULENT MANAGEMENT. Money lost in the GFC is an entirely different matter.
    LiveItUp
    6th Aug 2015
    11:47am
    There were no problems when the returns were heading north.
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    4:11pm
    Investors who specifically asked for conservative investments may well not have complained whilst they were in the money. But then they were probably never informed of what their money was doing: GAMBLING.
    Such a dumb comment bonny.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    12:37pm
    No I don't think a compensation scheme is relevant or needed. Yes I have lost money in the past on bad advice and negligence of others and have taken the appropriate action to recover the loss. As with all industries there will always be those who will rip people off but no amount of legislation etc will completely fix this. With the financial investments it is your money so one needs to take responsibility and educate yourself like one does with any other industry. So the best way to clean up the industry is educating oneself on financial matters.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    12:43pm
    What part of 'last resort' after cavorting through all the hoops do you not understand? An insurance scheme would only apply to genuine cases of malfeasance or hazardous advice without recourse to the actual economic conditions.

    "Yes, indeed - there is a GREAT right now opportunity with GoldFarb Asteroid Mining.. and it's about to break out and go viral in the next TWO years! Just check these photos of the nickel and gold available on Runnygad alone!.. first hand stuff too from prospectors!"

    "But what about the Gold Coast land with waterfront we were looking at?"

    "Errrr - sorry - that one... sorta sank... but look at this prospectus..."
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    12:52pm
    If anyone was to invest in such ventures then good luck to them because they will need a lot more than even luck on those.

    I understand too well what is going on and what I see is people who have lost money trying to blame others because it didn't pan out to be the windfall they expected.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:31pm
    The Coal Mine in QLD just got a Kick in the Britches !! Some Environment Issue ?
    I'll bet they are Sulking in Cann B ! :-( Something to do with an Endangered Croaky Frog or something ?
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    5:31pm
    Bonny you speak exclusively from your own perspective. You completely ignore the fact that some people who may come into a little money simply do not, or cannot master the financial system in a satisfactory time frame. I speak form personal experience. I am far from financially illiterate, but investing for my self-managed super fund My methodology pre-GFC is very different from post GFC. However post GFC I started 30% poorer.
    How then are people whose skills do not encompass financial management to manage other than by engaging professional advisers (FAs). They also may not have the skills to manage the legal process of recovery. Is it fair for the "system" to make them fair game for any passing financial predator?
    So why not a guarantee fund, which could also deal with cases where the possibility of recovery is excluded by insolvency of the FA or his insurers. By the by, FAs are required compulsorily to effect PI insurance, however policies are subject to a number of exclusions which may prevent a consumer recovering. After all, the US has a guarantee fund for banks funded by a levy on the banks.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    6:00pm
    Why not then have funds for all the other things consumers complain about? Where does this stop and why are the banks responsible for the GFC or any change of markets in which people lose money?

    My own methodolgy has not changed since way before the GFC. I have studied financial planning and disagree with many of the methodologies taught. I have a different idea of safe investments to many other people. No matter how safe something is if it doesn't make a decent return it is not a safe investment. Term deposits today are not safe investments because after tax and inflation they rarely make a return at all. I personally do not use them.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    6:46pm
    Bonny, you misinterpret my comments (and I realise by subsequent posts I have to recalibrate my views on your expertise as the content of comments clearly belies your actual experience.)
    The guarantee scheme would only address losses which result from negligence, dishonesty etc which is not recoverable from any other source. It would/should not address loss solely caused by market fluctuation.
    In that regard I refer you to the multi-million dollar losses paid by Westpac a number of years ago through foreign currency loans to particularly farmers. Farmers were induced to take out foreign currency loans to take advantage of exchange rates and foreign low interest rates, but were not advised of the potential impact of adverse changes in the exchange rate. The loss was caused by a market fluctuation but many would not have taken on the loan absent the bad advice on the effect of exhange rate fluctuations.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    7:44pm
    I happen to know one of those farmers involved and at the time he was bragging to everyone about his cheap loan (Swiss bank from memory). He knew the risks involved but buried his head in the sand and thought the worse case scenario wouldn't happen to him. He was very quiet for a while after the worse case happened to him but forward a few years and his was once again bragging about how he got his money back from Westpac. No wonder I am questioning the validity of such loses as to me it's akin to buying a lottery ticket and suing because one doesn't win.
    KSS
    5th Aug 2015
    1:12pm
    So now the tax payer has to compensate those who made bad financial decisions?

    Oh well why not? We have to pay for everything else that goes wrong in people's lives.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    1:30pm
    KSS, You like Bonney seem to forget that the bad ones were illegally signing documents, altering them afterwards etc. This is what this is all about not just bad advice
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    1:36pm
    That's what the makes the news but I don't believe it really happened myself.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    1:54pm
    Doesn't matter what you believe. It was ASIC a government authority who finally caught up with these people after they were pushed to investigate. So why were so many advisers banned by it.
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    1:55pm
    No - the banks would be funding the scheme, not the taxpayers.
    KSS
    5th Aug 2015
    1:56pm
    Wstaton if that was the case then as an employee of the bank, the bank is responsible for tier actions and should 'compensate' the customer if the case is proven negligence. It should not be the tax payer who picks up the tab yet again.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    2:55pm
    Definitely agree with you there KSS. It should not be the taxpayer it definitely should be the Banks.
    Grumpy
    5th Aug 2015
    6:02pm
    Bonny, Wstaton is absolutely right. It goes on all the time.
    KSS how do you feel about the scheme to compensate victims of crime? Many of the people who lose are victims of crime.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    7:48pm
    So it's criminal to lose money and someone has to pay.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    8:04pm
    No Bonny it is criminal for someone else to lose you money using criminal actions.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:40pm
    KSS: Guess who bailed out the banks in America after the GFC? Taxpayers. Guess who bailed out the banks in Cyprus? Depositors who took a large haircut and of course more taxpayers. Guess who is paying the fossil fuel industry in Australia $8 billion every year after the repeal of the Carbon Tax which was working like a Ferarri? Taxpayers.
    Don't be too surprised KSS. We elect the bastards and then they turn on those who put them in....and people keep voting for them. What is the definition of insanity? Normally when something is not working you stop doing it don't you?
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    1:22pm
    Thinking of these ripoff artists especially in the CBA (used to be the peoples bank) it made me wonder just how much we the used to be owners were ripped off by governments selling off our assets.

    Did you know that the CBA was sold off (to make the then current, in power, governments bottom line look good) for just under $8billion. Also did you know that the CBA's 2014 profit was $8.7BILLION. Profit in one year now is more than the bank was sold for. Now lets face it the bank was very profitable when it was sold or I don't think that people would have bought it.

    This once again shows the short shortsightedness of politicians. They think of the day not of the future.

    Do you know how much AFTER TAX profits the CBA has earned since it was sold off. More than 74 billion dollars 18 years ago. $74 billion that should have been going into our taxpayers coffers. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

    Apart from this a government owned enterprise always keeps the others toeing the line.

    Now we have seen the same with Medibank (Don't know where the money disappeared from that sale) Who are now trying to rip off members by screwing the hospitals. Now of course there is no government enterprise to keep them honest. Just a CEO who wants to raise profits in order to keep his job. Not that the profits were bad anyway.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    1:43pm
    Do you really think that the CBA would have been so successful in government hands. If so then you are dreaming. With Medibank private I think it is just moving into line with what the other medical funds have been doing for years. The hospital have themselves now lost their previous nice little earner.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    1:56pm
    Of course it would. The CBA was successful before it was sold off. Why do you think people bought the shares. Or were they dumb buying into a loss making crumbling bank.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    2:06pm
    No the CBA would have not been any where the bank it is today in government hands. Yes I bought CBA shares in the float. Not a bad return from $5.40 to today's price of $87.37 plus all the dividends. People bought shares because like me they believed it make a nice return in private hands.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    2:57pm
    Yes and stuff the taxpayer who ended losing out.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    3:09pm
    Taxpayers didn't lose out because they sold it.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:15pm
    Sold what ? Don't tell Me the Bunarong Power House is missing now ? :-(
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    3:28pm
    Bunarong Power House is probably in mothballs as we don't need it's output any more. I'm beginning to wonder who is going to buy our poles and wires with the generation of electricity now passing into the hands of the consumer.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:38pm
    Please supply Rubber Gloves ! :-)
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    8:07pm
    To true Bonny, The power going back to the people instead of being sold off so a few can make a profit.

    And guess what, the power reversing is going to happen more and more.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    8:18pm
    Well we won't talk about the what the millionaires club is going to do with Labor's proposed Carbon Trading Scheme then. Unfortunately it is all about making money and won't be much help to the environment.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:47pm
    Wstaton: don't know why I keep reading bonny's comments. Unbelievable!
    You are on the money though. The CBA was doing a great job when we owned it. Now the profitis cease to go to consolidated revenue. The same is true for business after business. This is why we now have no money available to pay for hospitals and staffing, public education, and a whole list of other organisations working for the public.
    The sad reality is that the assets were flogged off and the money wasted. So now that it is gone we borrow from China. Methinks that I am living in a dumb nation as intelligent people and their governments do not let such things happens.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    9:56pm
    Yes Mick and this is only the CBA. how much has now gone that would be going into consolidated revenue if we added the profits of all the public assets sold off to date.

    But soon this will get worse. What happens when there is nothing left to sell!

    I guess they will start selling our souls.
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    4:16pm
    Its already getting worse. Less and less income, more debt and more and more talk about taxing mums and dads. This is where flogging off everything is getting us, but its not over yet. Currently our farming land is being flogged off to FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. This is something which hardly any other nation allows........for the bleedin' obvious reason. It will cause untold pain in 100 years but this is what the management of this country thinks of future AUstralians. It stinks!
    particolor
    6th Aug 2015
    5:45pm
    The land will be put to Good Use ! Growing Mandarin's !! :-)
    Dollars over Respect?
    5th Aug 2015
    1:22pm
    Does anybody remember the days when "The Bank Manager" was a respected person of trust? Back in the days of my parents! When if a crop failed/disaster fell due to unfortunate weather/circumstances, the bank stood behind the producer/customer (because it wasn't the producer's/customer's fault, but because it was the right thing to do (the manager could look refer to the past performance to establish the riskiness or otherwise and because the producer/customer had banked their money with them for many years, allowing the banks to make a profit over all the good years). Those days the banks had our trust. Now the banks are run for profits only (if you fall on hard times for no fault of your own, the opportunity is swiftly seized and all your assets sold off to the highest bidder (doesn't matter if it is a foreign investor - just as long as the bank is profitable for the 'stakeholders', and ealso nsuring the bank staff receive their key performance related bonuses). A great system ? No way is this going to benefit Australia/Australians - only those same greedy individuals. Those same people who like to put the boot in when someone else is down - especially if it benefits them. Very un-Australian but sadly now our reality. I know of no one who trusts a bank to 'do the right thing'.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    1:50pm
    Well only this morning I got a call from one of my banks asking me if there was anything they could do to help me. Personally I have had nothing but good service from any of the banks which is very different from the sensational stuff that the media wants us to believe. Yes I would trust the bank to do the right thing.
    Wstaton
    5th Aug 2015
    2:06pm
    Did you really Bonnie?

    I was with the CBA for years and with other banks and cannot remember once where a bank has called up unsolicited to ask me if they can help with anything.

    With this and all your other comments that don't stand up I think you are having us on.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    2:16pm
    It wasn't the CBA this morning who rang but I did get a similar call from the CBA a couple of weeks ago too.

    I do know too that I had quite a few people tell me about certain investment schemes they were in before the GFC and were very surprised when I said that they were too risky for me. Today these are some of the people who are claiming bad advice. To me these people knew that they were in risky investments but were prepared to take that gamble until the gamble didn't pay off. Should these people be compensated for bad advice. Definitely NO.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    2:48pm
    OH ! Dear ? Expect some cash to be missing from Your account !! :-( Especially if You gave any Account Numbers over the Phone or anywhere else for that Matter !! :-(
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    2:59pm
    And why would I give my account numbers out over the phone? The bank would have no need to ask for them. Maybe they have reduced what I owe them.

    I ask people who ring me security questions that only they know the answers to before even speaking to them. If in doubt then I ask their name and number. I then look up the number of the organisation they told me they were calling from and ring that number (not the one given) and ask to be transferred to that person. If you are not doing this then that is probably why cash is missing from your account.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:12pm
    I've never had a Cent Stolen !! :-) One Clown asked Me a while back "Can I have Your Secret Word Pliz !" I said "You tell Me and I'll tell You if Your right !" He hung up !! :-)
    Anonymous
    5th Aug 2015
    3:18pm
    I can still remember some idiot telling me the best new thing was investing in emu eggs and how much money he was going to make and he was most upset when I couldn't stop laughing and he spent a fortune buying a several at $12000.00 each.
    I still see him around and guess what no emus and no money.
    Surely no compensation for this fool.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:22pm
    Was His name Mr Scrimshore ? :-)
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    3:25pm
    I've got some emu eggs. I wonder if your idiot wants to buy some more. My Nanna left them to me in her will and I've been wondering what to do with them for over 40 years now.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    3:36pm
    Robbo might take them Bonny ? I think He's over his laughing fit now . He might feel like an Omelette ? :-)
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    3:53pm
    Gee he is gamer than me after 40 plus years it would be a well matured omelette.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    4:19pm
    Might be Ok with some VINTAGE Cheese !! :-)
    I think its time we took this Subject Seriously..
    For all those who have lost their cash ! Bad Luck ! Its in safe Hands and disappeared down the NWO Drain Hole !! :-)
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:51pm
    Wstaton: I like your comment above. "Full of it' pretty well covers it from what I can tell.
    Gra
    5th Aug 2015
    4:26pm
    No, the banks don't care. They still make their billion dollar profit regardless. Little thought is given to the investor who trusted them and has now lost almost everything. ALL banks should have to participate in a fund which protects investors in time of loss. Investors initial investment should be protected.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    4:51pm
    And SSAOU ! :-)
    Dollars over Respect?
    5th Aug 2015
    7:38pm
    Bonny:
    If you received an unsolicited call from your bank, they are obviously making a very rosy profit out of dealing with you....or planned to try to sell you one of their products! Yes, i've had a call from mine too...wanting to know if they can help me with my superannuation! No thanks, too clued up to fall for that one! It would appear that the only people who are truly happy with the 'recent performances' of the big banks are their shareholders and the cashed up and foreign but "resident" property investors.
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    8:04pm
    I get regular calls from my banks. One asked me to change one of my credit cards as they had a new one that was better than the one I had. After checking it out I agreed with them and got given enough points for a return flight to NZ for changing over. That same credit card has now also earned me a return flight to Perth. To me that's a good deal from my bank as it has cost me nothing and there is no annual fee for the card.

    Another one rang to tell me to open a new account every few months so that I could take advantage of their honeymoon rate each time which was good of them.

    Yes I am happy with the performance of the banks myself.
    particolor
    5th Aug 2015
    8:12pm
    I'm happy with My new Helicopter !! :-) I mad 5 Grand on one Customer last month :-)
    LiveItUp
    5th Aug 2015
    8:15pm
    5 grand would be only be small change to you then.
    MICK
    5th Aug 2015
    9:53pm
    Dollars: one can normally recognise crap when one hears it. Not worth a response methinks as clearly a story with no factual basis.
    Not Senile Yet!
    6th Aug 2015
    12:04am
    Well, Well, Well????
    Some on here are well informed aren't they???
    The truth is that Governments of Past have been too greedy in their sell offs....greedy in that sold the Whole Pie un-necessarily.....They failed to do their homework!!!!
    There are many instance where Governments have sold off Banks, but then re-invested the Sale Price in shares or at least part of the Sale Price in shares....with great success!!!
    Unfortunately our Dumb Donkeys do not know the difference between getting GOOD Independent financial advice and just listening to vested interests.
    Governments have the right to even make it part of the sale that they receive xxxx amount of shares in the deal....just as Private Enterprises do.......but our Donkeys are not.... business people are they?
    We elect party puppets but expect them to not have invested interests or interest outside Politics.....what a bunch of morons we the voters are!!!!
    But hey you all keep voting for the Party Puppets and keep on whingeing.....by all means....it's your right!!!!
    As for those who still argue about Left or Right...Labor or Liberal.....grow a Brain that functions independently from ALL THEIR Propaganda......get to see clearly the Great CON that Party Politics is......then CHANGE your Point Of View and vote accordingly!!!
    You never know......if enough of you do it.....it may become a Game Changer.....and the Party Puppets that have a Pigs at the Public Purse just might be removed!!!!
    I Know.....I am a Dreamer.......cos you simply cannot change.....or Can YOU?
    Kaye Fallick
    6th Aug 2015
    4:10pm
    We have just removed a comment which had bad language - let's keep the discussion polite. Many thanks Kaye
    particolor
    6th Aug 2015
    5:54pm
    I agree ! Losing Your Life Savings is no reason to swear ! :-(
    MICK
    6th Aug 2015
    7:15pm
    I'll swear by that.
    Rose
    8th Aug 2015
    2:22am
    I think no bank should be entrusted with your money,unless you are in the banking field yourself and know all the tricks .It is better spend it all in a good house,and necessity of life, a trip and a car or two,the rest to the children.
    SWK
    8th Aug 2015
    2:34pm
    The crisis in confidence springs from a series of exposes in the financial planning arms of some of the country's biggest banks, including allegations of forgery and fraud, a cover-up by management, advisers cheating on exams and excessive churning of insurance products. ANZ expands that to charging fees for no service. If there were ever an indication the Coalition was on a hiding to nothing when it tried to water down financial reforms, it was in late September when the peak lobby group that represents more than $2.2 trillion in money, the Financial Services Council, put up the white flag and proposed an independent advisory body funded by the industry to be formed to try to rebuild the industry's battered reputation.
    geomac
    8th Aug 2015
    11:03pm
    The government plans to introduce legislation aimed at neutering parts of Labor's finance advice reforms on Wednesday under the cover of the Prime Minister's statement on red-tape reduction.
    The legislation, which will be separate to the red-tape bills, will remove the catch-all requirement for financial advisers to act in clients' "best interests". It will also re-allow sales commissions and other forms of conflicted remuneration where advice is general in nature.


    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-will-bypass-parliament-to-change-financial-advice-act-20140317-34y4m.html#ixzz3iEDBsrPn
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
    geomac
    8th Aug 2015
    11:05pm
    So remove protection for consumers and give the green light to banks to rip of the public. Our votes are wanted but big donations are wanted more so thats who the Abbott govt makes policy for./
    particolor
    9th Aug 2015
    11:22am
    " Put yer Hands in the air and gimme all ya money !!"
    Ma Baker...
    SJQRP
    9th Nov 2015
    5:26pm
    The financial advisors should be professionals governed by a professional body just as engineers, doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc. are. They should carry professional indemnity insurance just as these professionals do. They should be paid a fee for service just as these professionals are, out of which they pay their insurance levy. There should be no backhanded commissions as have been the cause of a lot of poor advice and financial dishonesty. The financial advisors should be at least 4 year university plus 3 year supervised practise qualified. Then they can be sued for bad advice and their professional indemnity will pay.
    It is the government has to determine suitable qualifications and the lower limit for insurance.
    Wstaton
    9th Nov 2015
    5:52pm
    To easy!
    particolor
    9th Nov 2015
    9:04pm
    I can see Most of them Ripping their Shingle off the Wall and Slamming the Door now !! After reading that !! :-) :-)


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles