Bank submission to Treasury comes to light after initially appearing not to make one
Bank submission to Treasury comes to light after initially appearing not to make one
Commonwealth Bank’s views on commissions have been made clearer after the Treasury made public CBA’s submission to ASIC’s Review of Mortgage Remuneration.
When the Treasury first revealed submissions from banks, aggregators, and associations last week, CBA did not appear to have made a submission. A spokeswoman told MPA that the bank had “contributed via the ABA’s [Australian Bankers Association] submission” and CBA’s submission points several times to the ABA’s Sedgwick Review, without explicitly repeating Sedgwick’s proposal to de-link broker commissions from loan size.
However, CBA’s submission also diverges from the ABA’s views. CBA state that “we note and support the comments in the ABA’s submission regarding a self-regulatory model, however it is important that the frameworks responding to both the Retail Banking Remuneration Review [Sedgwick Review] and Report 516 [ASIC’s review] be aligned.” CBA then requests further consideration and guidance from ASIC.
Divisions appear between the major banks
CBA’s guarded views regarding commissions are not necessarily shared by other banks.
NAB’s submission called for changes to the calculation of upfront commissions, whilst Westpac’s rejected many alternate remuneration models, including ASIC’s own commission-by-LVR suggestion.
The ABA’s submission strongly supported self-regulation through the Combined Industry Forum, which includes the MFAA, FBAA and other representatives through broking. CBA, alongside other banks, faces a balancing act between the Forum’s recommendations and those of Sedgwick, which they publically vowed to implement by 2020 if not earlier.
ANZ’s views remain unknown as their submission to the Treasury remains private, if indeed one has been made.
Growing frustration with public reporting proposal
One area where CBA was open in their views was ASIC’s 5th proposal, for more public reporting of the industry.
“The development of an enhanced public reporting regime should have regard to the nature of any commercially sensitive data,” warn CBA, “there may be some instances where data should remain private and more suitable to inform the regulator’s supervisory activities,”
Brokers have also criticised ASIC’s 5th proposal, with the FBAA arguing that “the very concept of publicly reporting this data is misguided and we do not support any part of it.”
Commonwealth Bank’s views on commissions have been made clearer after the Treasury made public CBA’s submission to ASIC’s Review of Mortgage Remuneration.
When the Treasury first revealed submissions from banks, aggregators, and associations last week, CBA did not appear to have made a submission. A spokeswoman told MPA that the bank had “contributed via the ABA’s [Australian Bankers Association] submission” and CBA’s submission points several times to the ABA’s Sedgwick Review, without explicitly repeating Sedgwick’s proposal to de-link broker commissions from loan size.
However, CBA’s submission also diverges from the ABA’s views. CBA state that “we note and support the comments in the ABA’s submission regarding a self-regulatory model, however it is important that the frameworks responding to both the Retail Banking Remuneration Review [Sedgwick Review] and Report 516 [ASIC’s review] be aligned.” CBA then requests further consideration and guidance from ASIC.
Divisions appear between the major banks
CBA’s guarded views regarding commissions are not necessarily shared by other banks.
NAB’s submission called for changes to the calculation of upfront commissions, whilst Westpac’s rejected many alternate remuneration models, including ASIC’s own commission-by-LVR suggestion.
The ABA’s submission strongly supported self-regulation through the Combined Industry Forum, which includes the MFAA, FBAA and other representatives through broking. CBA, alongside other banks, faces a balancing act between the Forum’s recommendations and those of Sedgwick, which they publically vowed to implement by 2020 if not earlier.
ANZ’s views remain unknown as their submission to the Treasury remains private, if indeed one has been made.
Growing frustration with public reporting proposal
One area where CBA was open in their views was ASIC’s 5th proposal, for more public reporting of the industry.
“The development of an enhanced public reporting regime should have regard to the nature of any commercially sensitive data,” warn CBA, “there may be some instances where data should remain private and more suitable to inform the regulator’s supervisory activities,”
Brokers have also criticised ASIC’s 5th proposal, with the FBAA arguing that “the very concept of publicly reporting this data is misguided and we do not support any part of it.”
