We are seeing widespread financial exploitation because of cultural, economic and political factors that haven’t been addressed. Regulators should do more.
A number of factors have contributed to the horrible stories coming out of the Royal Commission, including market instability and the financialisation of farming.
In choosing not to impose restrictions on bonuses and commissions, the government left untouched the incentives for inappropriate financial advice and lending decisions.
While codes of conduct in banking may help, the tsunami of financial regulation over the past few decades has swept aside much of the sense of personal accountability.
The financial institutions fronting the Financial Services Royal Commission are also the ones controlling mortgages, so will an expose of their dealings push property prices down?
Even when ASIC has been sufficiently resourced to pursue litigation, the Australian courts have contributed to an environment where contravening behaviour is a rewarding option.
Unaffordable home loans, poor financial advice and unmanageable consumer credit may have serious consequences for many Australians, beyond bankruptcy and debt. Here’s what the research says.
It seems ASIC and the Director of Public Prosecutions will have no lack of evidence to pursue civil penalties and criminal cases. The bigger issue is what charges to go with.
The way corporations are structured makes it hard to establish criminal culpability even if directors and executives control processes and are paid bonuses based on performance.