Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Campbell threshed out the advantages of co-regulation, which like ‘self-regulation supports competition, but with limited government involvement to ensure the desired prudential objectives are achieved effectively and equitably.’
The Campbell Committee advanced on the premise ‘the most efficient way to organise economic activity is through a competitive market system, which is subject to a minimum level of regulation and government intervention.'
It's view was ‘vigorous competition is essential for efficient operation of financial markets’ and potential conflicts of interest could be avoided by broadening membership of the self-regulating body, however, twelve bank CEO's demonstrated an efficient market is essential.
The Ray Committee expressed the same view with respect to these shortcomings, which have surfaced in the banking sector since 2003. The Rea Committee commented on self-regulation and the essential need for government’s role in the regulatory process.
This paper suggests regulation and competition do not compete if regulatory bodies are effective. The Australian banking sector, however, is testament to less than satisfactory Government oversight of regulators. FIND MORE...
I found when banks receive complaints they cannot afford to investigate, they deny everything and breach their duty set out in the Code of Banking Practice to investigate ‘all complaints’,
In the US, SEC reported the botched investigation into the Madoff affair was due to inept staff failing to investigate allegations referred to them.
On 11 December, Madoff pleaded guilty to eleven felonies of operating a scheme and defrauding thousands of investors of billions of dollars.
I found Australian bank CEO’s devised an arrangement that was deceptive, taking away the rights of 22M Australian individuals and small business bank customers.
The CEO’s of twelve banks simply removed the safeguards they were contractually bound by to protect all 22m Australian individual and small business bank customers.
The banks acted as a cartel, and if they deny this, they certainly conspired to dismantle customer protection policies and engineer an arrangement to further their own interests.
It might sound far-fetched but it isn’t. The full report shows how the CEO’s were the brains trust behind the arrangement, and friends of the banks allowed it continue for eight years.
The paper explains how the banks and their CEO’s did it and provides supporting evidence that is not in dispute. READ MORE.....
The full Problematic Code paper can be found on the Senate website, headed COSBOA Sub No 90: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/banking_comp_2010/submissions.htm
The paper describes the unfairness of Bank/ Customer relationships and how bank employees and customers are misled into believing banks will “act fairly and reasonably to customers in a consistent and ethical manner”.
If four Rio Tinto executives in China received jail terms of between 7 - 14 years for having “seriously damaged the interests of the Chinese steel enterprises” in 2010, it’s impossible to imagine what penalty the same court would hand the twelve bank CEO’s if they collectively impaired the interests of every Chinese bank customer.
But will the Australia regulators hold the twelve highly paid banks CEO's accountable?
It is hoped this report will encourage legislators and regulators to reconsider the importance of protecting the Australian public, who have been kept in the dark by ambitious and highly rewarded bank executives, willing cover-up dishonest and unethical behavior.
If you would like to contact the parties involved in publishing this report you may contact us via our Contact form.