I found this an important chapter because the Martin Committee inquiry into the Australian financial systems endorsed the need for competition, as did the Campbell Committee ten years earlier, however, an efficient market is essential.
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...
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Chapter 3 - EFFECT OF PROBLEMATIC CODE
I found the research for this paper exposed acts of dishonesty by bank CEO’s when the introduced the twisted the use of key words ‘a complaint’ with ‘a dispute’.
The Code/ constitution relationship seems to have been designed by the CEO's to mislead bank customers, and raise legal questions that were wicked.
Did the bank CEO’s intend to mislead customers promoting the Code after they engineered the constitution, taking away the Code monitors powers?
In the Code, was the section headed ‘resolution of disputes, monitoring and sanctions’ simply a lie as the CEO’s had already imposed the constitution?
Did CEO’s intend to take away their customers’ protection principles when they engineered the toxic Code and the CCMCA constitution rip-off?
So who is responsible?
The ABA published the Code. In 2003 its senior officers were John McFarlene, ABA Chairman (ANZ Bank CEO) and Gail Kelly, ABA Deputy Chair (St George/ Westpac CEO).
This paper refers to the conduct of all twelve banks in part 2, in the sections referring to the ‘movers and shakers’ in banking industry since 2003. FIND MORE...
Chapter 2 - DO BANKERS LIE ?
The principles of law are based on common sense. The banks published the Code of Banking Practice in 2003 because the application of the law is both challenging and expensive.
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’,
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’,
The bank admits there is a dispute and the Code defines disputes. The Code monitors who monitor ‘all complaints’ are bound by another bank contract and they don’t investigate ‘all disputes’.
Now, 22M individual and small business customers can take their bank to court. First, work out how much the bank will spend to cover up corruption - $1M, $2M or $20M, and double it.
This paper explains how the Martin Committee took exception to this, and the 1993 Code followed.
The real antics didn’t appear until 2003, John McFarlane (ANZ), ABA was Chairman and Gail Kelly (St George) his Deputy. FIND MORE...
Chapter 1 - ARE BANKERS RESPONSIBLE ?
Chapter 1 sets out my insight into problematic banking, in 2008. I found the 2003 Australian Code of Banking Practice was toxic.
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.
My investigations into the Australian Problematic Code coincided with the emergence of Bernie Madoff's documents in the US.
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.
I reported this to the Council of Small Business and that started two years of investigations into how treasury allowed this to happen undetected. FIND MORE...
PREFACE
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper examines the extent to which customers of the major banks are not provided fair treatment and full disclosure of facts, relevant to customer protection.
Voluntary Codes, such as the Code of Banking Practice, and self-regulation should work effectively but this paper shows this has not happened in Australian since 2003.
An unpublished arrangement between the banks and Code reviewer’s allows the banks to filter customer complaints, limiting the authority, independence and power of the reviewers.
I lodged my own submission that shows the Code is a contract and therefore the banks and their CEO’s treatment seems criminal. READ MORE....
My submissions can be found on the Senate website at Sub No 109 http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/banking_comp_2010/submissions.htm
EDITOR'S NOTE
This paper examines how Australian individual and small business customers of the twelve major banks are required to be protected by a Code of Banking Practice, in the form of a contract, which assures customers of fair treatment and full disclosure by banks.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)