feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

July 30, 2009

Deposit guarantee scheme update

The Government Guarantee Scheme for deposits and wholesale funding is due to expire in October 2011 and there is already debate about how the scheme will be wound down.


The joint submission from the RBA and APRA to the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into Bank Funding Guarantees contains some interesting data on the reasons for and the effect of the government guarantee:

  • 104 CUBS (or other ADI’s) out of a total of 136 have obtained a certificate for deposits over $1M;
  • 1 has a certificate for short term wholesale funding and 1 has a certificate for term funding;
  • “Liaison with ADIs suggests that most depositors with over $1 million are not seeking the guarantee when they have to pay for it. The major exception is depositors with very conservative mandates, such as trustees and councils. “

The submission does not discuss the cost differential of the guarantee between banks and CUBS, although it does observe that “(g)iven the changes that have taken place elsewhere, the pricing of the Australian guarantee for long-term debt now looks relatively low for AA rated banks”.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 30th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Risk management

July 29, 2009

NAB drops overdrawn account fees

NAB has responded to customer complaints and the potential effect of the proposed unfair contract terms provisions of the Australian Consumer Law by announcing that on 1 October 2009 it will abolish the fees known by customers as overdrawn account fees on all NAB personal transaction and savings accounts. The fee is currently $30 per overdrawn event.


Under common law, to be valid a penalty imposed by a contract for a breach must be a genuine pre-estimate of the loss likely to be suffered by the party as a result of the breach, and should not be an arbitrary sum. However, under the unfair contract terms provision of the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill 2009 the relevant consideration is whether the term is unfair.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 29th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Legal

July 28, 2009

What does it take to make a good director?

It’s that time of the year when organisations are calling for nominations for candidates for directors.


Many organisations now have a statutory and constitution requirement that their directors not be not “fit and proper” (Sorry about the double negative).


But being assessed as fit and proper does not mean that all candidates are equal with equal skills or attributes that will make them a valued director.


The New South Wales Supreme Court is currently determining the penalties to be imposed on former directors and executives of James Hardie following the decision in April that they were guilty of their duties of care and diligence (see summary of April decision here and Business Day summary of penalty submissions here).


Paying attention to detail, commitment to devoting the required time and diligence in listening, reading and participating in board meetings should not be underestimated in the mix of the attributes needed to make a good director. Of course, financial, legal, marketing and other skills also contribute to a successful board.


Once the minimum fit and proper standards have been met, boards need to devise processes to ensure they get the mix of candidates needed to successfully contribute to the board, if elected.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 28th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Legal

July 23, 2009

Responsible lending

While the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill has specific responsible lending obligations in terms of (unsuitability) assessment and disclosure (provision of a credit guide) which will require the development of policies and procedures and the training of staff before 1 January 2011, the impact of responsible lending will ultimately be more than procedural.

It will be a conduct obligation under the Australian Credit License held by a credit provider on which a credit provider must report compliance annually.

A significant breach could result in a fine or even loss of the licence to provide consumer credit.

[UPDATE 24 July: Note also that  section 133 also imposes a  maximum 2 years imprisonment for breaching the prohibition on entering, or increasing the credit limit of,  unsuitable credit contracts in addition to a monetary penalty.]

The Mutual Banking Code of Practice contains sections on responsible lending and credit limit increase offers as follows:

6. Responsible lending practices

(6.1) We will always act as a responsible lender.

(6.2) We will base our lending decisions, including decisions to extend existing credit facilities, on a careful and prudent assessment of your financial position. We will periodically review our credit assessment procedures and criteria for the products we issue.

(6.3) We will generally only lend amounts to you that we believe, on the information available to us, you can reasonably afford to repay. However, different criteria will apply in the case of some products, such as bridging finance arrangements and reverse mortgage loans (if we offer these).

(6.4) We expect you to provide honest and accurate information to us when applying for a loan or the extension of a credit facility. However, where it is prudent to do so, we will also undertake our own independent checks.

(6.5) We will promote the responsible use of credit to our members and customers using a range of approaches.

7. Credit limit increase offers

(7.1) If we issue a credit card or other revolving credit facility, we will act responsibly in setting and increasing the amount of credit we make available to you. We will not send you an unsolicited offer to increase your credit limit if you have a recent poor repayment history, or we are aware of other circumstances that make it imprudent for us to extend further credit to you.

(7.2) We will ensure any unsolicited offer we make to you to increase your credit limit on a credit card or other revolving credit facility that we issue includes information on:

• the new minimum payment required

• options for lowering existing or new credit limits

• not accepting the offer if you: cannot afford further credit; you are currently having difficulties meeting your repayments; or your financial circumstances are likely to deteriorate in the near future, and

• how to tell us if you do not wish to receive offers to increase your credit limit in the future.

If the Bill is passed, the responsible lending provisions will prescribe specific obligations in respect of credit assessments and verification of information.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 23rd July 2009 by David Jacobson in Legal

July 20, 2009

Subscribe to Langes National Credit Code Reform updates

You can now subscribe to Langes National Credit Code updates by email. You will be notified whenever a new item is published by us here.

Our latest article is a summary of the changes to the existing Consumer Credit Code by the National Credit Code from 1 January 2010 .

Subscribe to National Consumer Credit Reform by Email

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 20th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Legal

July 16, 2009

Update your compliance system to include credit license obligations

Draft ASIC Regulatory Guide 104 makes it clear that ASIC will require credit licensees to lodge an annual compliance certificate, most likely similar to FS 71 for your AFS Licence.

Now is the time to review your compliance framework: credit compliance should be linked into your overall risk management system and audit and assurance program.

We will be discussing credit compliance under the new system in detail at our new site here and at our seminars in August (information here).

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 16th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Legal

July 13, 2009

The mutual difference

The difference between mutuals and for-profits can be difficult for marketers to articulate and demonstrate. How do you tell your “story” in a print or TV ad? And how do you demonstrate the difference when dealing with members and regulators?


In Articulating the Co-op Difference, Benjamin Rogers argues that sustainability, community empowerment and other moral arguments can be more persuasive than rates, bank convenience and product range in certain communities.


In Credit Union vs Big Bank: An Experiment, Maya Bourdeau tries to demonstrate the difference in action by comparing opening a new account at a credit union with the process at a bank: the credit union experience was warm, inviting, and personable and the Big Bank experience was “colder, to the point, and business-like, in both the good and bad sense”. She says the process shows the difference in part but the credit union employee did not adequately tell the whole credit union story.


In Confessions of an Advertising Man well-known advertising agent David Ogilvy effectively used the analogy of a life cycle, “the inevitable pattern of rise and decline, from dynamite to dry rot”: “we can all name famous [financial institutions] which are moribund. You hear demoralising whispers in their corridors, long before the truth dawns on their clients”. Are mutuals the “new”: ambitious, hard working, full of dynamite? Should that be part of the story told to members and regulators?

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 13th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Mutuals

July 11, 2009

The cost of harmonisation

The Commonwealth Government through COAG is driving harmonisation of laws and regulation in a range of sectors, the goal being replacement of conflicting sets of state laws with uniform national laws and replacing numerous regulators with a single national regulator.

Credit unions, building societies and friendly societies went through this process in 2000.

Private health insurers have nearly completed this process.

Co-operatives, charities and the not-for-profit sector are going through this process now.

Whilst the requirement for compliance with best practice standards (eg financial and governance) is important, many community organisations and co-operatives are having difficulty with the requirement to use common terminology and change their descriptor (are they all Community Social Welfare Organisations? Are they  'micro', 'small', 'medium' or 'large'?). Why must they be registered under the Corporations Act or, in the case of charities and not-for-profits, a National Fundraising Act? (see the Senate Commitee Report)

Could the cost of harmonisation and regulation be the loss of individuality of the different types of organisations and the disappearance of micro and small community organisations?

What is gained by using common terminology and rules for all charities and not for profits regardless of whether they are in the health sector, primary producers, community welfare or housing? Can we afford to lose these organisations? Or can we afford not to regulate these sectors?

Perhaps mutuals that have gone through the process can pass on lessons learned.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 11th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Mutuals

July 10, 2009

Customer satisfaction: Greater is better than great

Greater Building Society has Jerry Seinfeld in its latest ads promoting customer satisfaction: The Australian

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 10th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Mutuals

Consumer credit code hardship threshold increased

The new threshold is $345,290 (up from $342,870). The next change will be on 10 August 2009.


Further information is available at Hardship Threshold.


From 1 January 2010 the threshold will be fixed at $500,000.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 10th July 2009 by David Jacobson in Legal