Banking Royal Commission Reports & Government reponse

I think you're being a little naive here

 

Redundancy rules dont apply to a small business. A business is permitted to terminate all its staff provided redundancy provisions are complied with and there is no wrongful termination. This generally requires notice to be given and all entitlement paid.

 

Just quoting NAB's response yesterday, but yes, it may not change.

 

Yes they do, try having a claim made and then fight it at FWC......even though you follow all the provisions no small business can afford to go to court hence most are settled at mediation.

 

NAB shares in trading halt pending 'leadership changes'

NAB has just gone into a trading halt..

 

Major bank chairman and CEO step down

 

Another problem going forward might be trying to find quality board members. With talk of jail time and added to other changes in recent times there will likely be less talented individuals prepared to sit on boards. Just not worth the risk.

 

Isn’t the cost associated with bank sourcing loan from their proprietary channel already included in their income (ie interest charged, package fee etc)? If I am someone who doesn’t use a broker, I would be very ****** as this additional fee is just unfair to me
Basically, I will be paying for loan establishment cost twice so brokers can have a level playing field

 

Despite there being a number of referrals for various charges in the RC report, I don't think we'll see much in the way of CEO or board prosecutions. A bit of hot air now, but that'll be forgotten or perhaps a few fines at some point. The banks have a very good track record of wining in court and the government knows this.

 

Loan through a broker or a loan through the proprietary channel, they both cost money which is still included in the cost of the loan.

 

I like this particular suggestion - good lateral thinking Paul. I hope forum members absorb the value of what has been said here.
Sadly it pre-supposes that either of the major parties actually gives a hoot about the prospects of small businesses in this country (in this case brokers), and that they also wish for effective competition to provide ultimate benefits for consumers. Both seem good objectives to me. Yet the welfare and sustainability of small business is never a priority in this country unfortunately.
The Morrison government would do well to pause and think before doing anything at all on this whole (brokerage) recommendation, otherwise it risks another giant own goal just like Kelly O'Dwyer's stinking changes to super. Goodness knows they can't affords to marginalise any more taxpayers then they already have. Just my 2 cents.

 

Wouldn't this effectively be the same as borrowers paying broker commissions (if they want to use one) upfront and being able to capitalise this in the loan?

 

They can claim wrongful termination especially if the position of redundancy is false. But if its under 15 employees and covered by the FWA a claim is easily refused where genuine redundancy applies.

Welcome to the Fair Work Ombudsman website

 

Its different but similar. It means that the lender still pays a fee so that all loans have a cost imposed that is transparent. Simon explained it well as wholesale v retail. But by paying it to the customer the customer is then free to consider the merits of a broker but the fee they are charged is based on market forces. At present brokers are remunerated by a lender specified amount and regardless of the effort etc.

And a customer who doesnt want to use a broker doesnt mean the bank wins. The customer saves the cost.

 

Also I havent seen any comment about this but I can bet you there are law firms across Australia that are working on it. The Hayne report didnt mention it. Another glaring omission. Puts the plan at risk.

Who will be first to sue lenders for breach of contract and seek the unpaid trail as a damages amount ? It is after all a right under existing contracts. If the law changes it doesnt mean the entitlement ends. The aggregators out there must be seeking legal advice. You think Mortgage Choice will just accept the trail ends for existing loans and thats it ?

Class actions will follow. Shine and Slater & Gordon and even IMF (litigation funding firm) will be onto this.

 

let me make a bold guess

On the face value of it, it seems banks want to get ride of brokers to increase their market share,

I reckon the real and long term agenda is to "control" ppl's finance futures, without brokers leveling the playing field and demisfying the differences between the banks and products. ppl would have no choices but blindly following what the banks tell them.

Banks ( the big 4) will be like the shepherd and ppl in the community will be like the herd ( financially).

 

Nah, I think the big 4 will be the fox/dingo, feasting on all their sheep .

 

I believe the treasurers response was that the government would work towards a ban on trail commission for NEW loans from 1 July 2020.

Hence trail commission on loans settled before 1 July 2020 would continue for as long as the loan continued.

Treasury: Trail to be banned next year

 

From what and the way I see things a lot of board members are also on various boards of various companies ??.
No matter how nice the managers are and how nice the tellers are ,the hard decisions are made by the unseen highly paid faceless ones and they don't care about you --your family --or your feelings..

If they did unit holders in various banks would not be in the leaking boat they are in now,at least when I get throw out from one AGM last year the short haired ladies don't bash you up in the car park away from the cctv scans..They just call me a trouble maker..