In choosing not to impose restrictions on bonuses and commissions, the government left untouched the incentives for inappropriate financial advice and lending decisions.
A whole bunch of folks are on the wire, and if their housing payments go up they are going to struggle.
All eyes will be on how ASIC and APRA respond to the findings of the banking royal commission. Will they be defensive about past mistakes, or move forward with tighter regulations?
The Commonwealth Bank has been given responsibility to fix its own management mess. Regulators could have done a lot more.
Westacott is on the frontline in what has become the toughest of gigs, given the shocking disclosures, and subsequent fallout, in the financial sector.
ASIC and APRA don't lack power to sack bank directors. They the lack the willpower to do so.
If we do escape the interest only debacle unscathed it will be pure, dumb luck, not a consequence of good design or sound regulation.
The Financial Services Royal Commission can ask the banks for the material it wants, in the form it wants.
Our financial regulators ASIC and APRA need a board of oversight, similar to what the UK has, to keep them in check.
Research shows that cash bonuses are responsible for many recent financial scandals. The alternative isn't that great either.
Even though the Prime Minister and heads of the big four banks argue costly political uncertainty is the reason for the royal commission, experts argue the banks' behaviour itself is the real cost.
Parliamentary hearings reveal a lot of confusion between government, regulators and industry around banking regulation. This needs to be fixed.
While the government hopes its new regulation will rein in the banks, it's unlikely to do so.
The new banking regulations undermine the existing system, confusing regulators and achieving very little.
Fully half of Westpac's loan book consists of interest-only loans, so why are the banks not more concerned about what could happen next?
One scandal at the CBA stands out above all others, It set the scene for how the CBA board would handle future scandals, that is to obfuscate, prevaricate and litigate.
Without clear support for whistleblowers in the terms of reference for the inquiry into CBA’s corporate governance, the conclusions will inevitably be tainted.
If APRA cannot evaluate a bank’s governance, who can?
APRA announced it will open its new season with an inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. But the opening of this new show raises some questions for the producers.
The APRA inquiry puts the regulator in the tricky position of trying to be seen to be tough on bank scandals but juggling its close relationship with the government and the CBA.