View previous stories
	Reward Work, Not Wealth by Oxfam International   Eighty two percent of the wealth generated last year went to the richest one percent of the global population, while the 3.7 billion people who make up the poorest half of the world saw no increase in their wealth, according to a new Oxfam report released today.   The ‘Reward Work, Not Wealth’ report reveals how the global economy enables a wealthy elite to accumulate vast fortunes while hundreds of millions of people are struggling to survive on poverty pay.   Billionaire wealth has risen by an annual average of 13 percent since 2010 – six times faster than the wages of ordinary workers, which have risen by a yearly average of just 2 percent. The number of billionaires rose at an unprecedented rate of one every two days between March 2016 and March 2017.   It takes just four days for a CEO from one of the top five global fashion brands to earn what a Bangladeshi garment worker will earn in her lifetime. In the US, it takes slightly over one working day for a CEO to earn what an ordinary worker makes in a year.   It would cost $2.2 billion a year to increase the wages of all 2.5 million Vietnamese garment workers to a living wage. This is about a third of the amount paid out to wealthy shareholders by the top 5 companies in the garment sector in 2016.   Oxfam’s report outlines the key factors driving up rewards for shareholders and corporate bosses at the expense of workers’ pay and conditions. These include the erosion of workers’ rights; the excessive influence of big business over government policy-making; and the relentless corporate drive to minimize costs in order to maximize returns to shareholders.   Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International said: “The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system. The people who make our clothes, assemble our phones and grow our food are being exploited to ensure a steady supply of cheap goods, and swell the profits of corporations and billionaire investors.”   Women workers often find themselves off at the bottom of the heap. Across the world, women consistently earn less than men and are usually in the lowest paid and least secure forms of work. By comparison, 9 out of 10 billionaires are men.   “Oxfam has spoken to women across the world whose lives are blighted by inequality. Women in Vietnamese garment factories who work far from home for poverty pay and don’t get to see their children for months at a time. Women working in the US poultry industry who are forced to wear nappies because they are denied toilet breaks,” said Byanyima.   Oxfam is calling for governments to ensure our economies work for everyone and not just the fortunate few:   Limit returns to shareholders and top executives, and ensure all workers receive a minimum ‘living’ wage that would enable them to have a decent quality of life. For example, in Nigeria, the legal minimum wage would need to be tripled to ensure decent living standards.   Eliminate the gender pay gap and protect the rights of women workers. At current rates of change, it will take 217 years to close the gap in pay and employment opportunities between women and men.   Ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of tax through higher taxes and a crackdown on tax avoidance, and increase spending on public services such as healthcare and education. Oxfam estimates a global tax of 1.5 percent on billionaires’ wealth could pay for every child to go to school.   Results of a new global survey commissioned by Oxfam demonstrates a groundswell of support for action on inequality. Of the 70,000 people surveyed in 10 countries, nearly two-thirds of all respondents think the gap between the rich and the poor needs to be urgently addressed.   “It’s hard to find a political or business leader who doesn’t say they are worried about inequality. It’s even harder to find one who is doing something about it. Many are actively making things worse by slashing taxes and scrapping labor rights,” said Byanyima.   “People are ready for change. They want to see workers paid a living wage; they want corporations and the super-rich to pay more tax; they want women workers to enjoy the same rights as men; they want a limit on the power and the wealth which sits in the hands of so few. They want action.”   * Access the report: http://www.oxfam.org/en/research/reward-work-not-wealth http://www.oxfam.org/en/tags/extreme-inequality Visit the related web page
	Australian Banking Commission: Thousands of dead customers charged fees for years by ABC News, Guardian Australia, NPR, agencies   In the US, banks have forked out more than $206 billion in fines in the past decade, a further $116 billion in the UK and $76 billion in Europe.   Australia''s big banks, superannuation funds, wealth managers and insurers are facing massive and enforced changes to their culture, management and conduct, largely thanks to their own testimony at the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation, and Financial Services Industry which has forensically picked apart the appalling behaviour that has become entrenched.   The Commission has examined corrupted sales-driven commissions and remuneration, poor risk management, tardy customer remediation, as well as the failed role of public regulators and the shortcomings of the law in the disintegrating trust the community has for the sector.   The Australian Government had for years rejected the requirement for the inquiry, only being forced into it due to unrelenting community pressure.   The statutory regulatory authorities comprehensively failed to protect customers interests and Australian Governments failed to ensure its regualtory and legislative framework protected citizens public interests. Corporate and regulatory capture of Australian governance availed such an outcome.   * It is estimated Australia''s major banks and financial institutions will be required to pay $10 billion dollars in fines and make refunds to hundreds of thousands of wronged customers.   Commission Executive summary interim report. (Edited Extract)   The Commission’s work, so far, has shown conduct by financial services entities in Australia has brought widespread public attention and condemnation.   In the Interim Report the questions – ‘why’ and ‘what now’ – are asked with particular reference to banks, loan intermediaries and financial advice, with a view to provoking informed debate about both questions.   Why did it happen? Too often, the answer seems to be greed – the pursuit of short term profit at the expense of basic standards of honesty. How else is charging continuing advice fees to thousands of dead customers to be explained? But it is necessary then to go behind the particular events and ask how and why they came about. Banks, and all financial services entities recognised that they sold services and products. Selling became their focus of attention. Too often it became the sole focus of attention. Products and services multiplied. Banks searched for their ‘share of the customer’s wallet’. From the executive suite to the front line, staff were measured and rewarded by reference to profit and sales.   When misconduct was revealed, it either went unpunished or the consequences did not meet the seriousness of what had been done.   The conduct regulator, ASIC, rarely went to court to seek public denunciation of and punishment for misconduct. The prudential regulator, APRA, never went to court.   Much more often than not, when misconduct was revealed, little happened beyond apology from the entity, a drawn out remediation program and protracted negotiation with ASIC of a media release, an infringement notice, or an enforceable undertaking that acknowledged no more than that ASIC had reasonable ‘concerns’ about the entity’s conduct. Infringement notices imposed penalties that were immaterial for the large banks. Enforceable undertakings might require a ‘community benefit payment’, but the amount was far less than the penalty that ASIC could properly have asked a court to impose..   The law already requires entities to ‘do all things necessary to ensure’ that the services they are licensed to provide are provided ‘efficiently, honestly and fairly’. Much more often than not, the conduct now condemned was contrary to law..   Is different enforcement what is needed to have financial entities apply basic standards of fairness and honesty: by obeying the law; not misleading or deceiving; acting fairly; providing services that are fit for purpose; delivering services with reasonable care and skill; and, when acting for another, acting in the best interests of that other? Such basic ideas are very simple.   Apr. 2018   In the past decade, our banks have been responsible for multiple breaches of the Corporations Act, writes Ian Verrender.   Ask yourself this — when was the last time a major corporation or executive was hauled before the courts? If you''re having trouble coming up with an answer, you''re in good company.   In the past decade, our banks have been responsible for multiple breaches of the Corporations Act.   They''ve admitted to rigging interest rate and foreign exchange markets. They''ve repeatedly stolen from their customers. They''ve happily charged premiums and then refused payments to legitimate insurance claimants.   Since the financial crisis, they have forked out more than $1 billion in fines and compensation for their misdeeds. But not one senior banking executive has faced a court room for any of this.   Since its inception decades ago, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has had the power to launch criminal and civil proceedings against big business. But for the past 15 years, it has deliberately chosen not to.   Instead, it''s opted for what''s known as "enforceable undertakings" — effectively a slap on the wrist and a hollow threat that it may take real action if it ever happens again.   As shocking as last weeks revelations were — charging clients, even thousands of dead ones, fees for not delivering any services — there''s nothing new in any of it.   Back in 2006, AMP became embroiled in what then appeared to be the scandal of the decade. It was caught overcharging thousands of customers, switching them into expensive and poorly-performing products designed to enrich planners and the organisation, at the expense of clients.   Despite the obvious criminality — it''s known outside the corporate world as theft — no-one faced charges and the AMP was never subjected to a civil damages case.   ASIC instead forced AMP to sign "enforceable undertakings". If the highly-publicised action had any effect, it was to send a message to the financiers that financial planners and the wealth management industry could operate with impunity.   Perhaps that explains why our banks, obliged to immediately inform the regulator of breaches, routinely have taken years to do so. Or why the AMP and its board didn''t think twice about meddling in a so-called independent report from law firm Clayton Utz on 27 different occasions.   Between them, the four banks and AMP in recent years have gouged more than $220 million from clients for services they never even intended to provide.   And the penalty for this theft? Just over a week ago, a few days before all this blew up in the royal commission, ASIC had the CBA, the worst offender by far, sign an enforceable undertaking for overcharging clients $118 million.   No court case. No-one personally held to account. And it''s part of a repeating pattern.   Less than 18 months ago, CBA signed an enforceable undertaking over its role in rigging foreign exchange markets. As part of the settlement it made a $24 million "donation" to a program to improve financial literacy. So much for deterrents.   It wasn''t always this way. The rot set in about a decade after ASIC was established in 1991, when then-chairman David Knott announced a new tactic. Rather than run criminal cases, ASIC instead would launch civil action against the top end of town.   The burden of proof was lower, he argued, allowing for greater court success. And with a wider approach, the enforcement agency could then hone in on specifics on criminal matters.   Shortly afterwards, One.Tel — the telco brainchild of James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, Jodee Rich and Brad Keeling — collapsed.   What ensued was one of Australia''s longest-running civil court cases. The poorly run case was a disaster, costing the regulator $20 million in legal bills.   It went down in a highly publicised insider trading case against Citigroup and blew $30 million in an ill-fated attempt to prove Andrew Forrest misled investors.   If its reputation was tarnished, things only deteriorated further when former Telstra director and alleged comedian Steve Vizard struck a deal with ASIC over his use of confidential Telstra information.   He admitted the charges, but in exchange for a deal where he would only be subject to civil penalties.   If there were any doubts ASIC had gone soft, the judge in that civil case, Justice Ray Finkelstein, took it upon himself to double the penalty recommended by the regulator.   Similar comments were made by Justice Dowsett last month when he imposed what even he believed was a lax penalty on Storm Financial founders Emmanuel and Julie Cassamatis.   The pair, who helped destroy around $880 million for low income vulnerable investors, were fined just $70,000 each and banned from managing a firm for seven years.   "I am inclined to think that the penalty sought by ASIC is on the low side, having regard to the cases to which I have been referred," he told the pair.   ASIC in 2012/13, in the wake of billions of dollars in corporate collapses, ran just 25 criminal cases and only 15 civil cases. Last year, it charged 22 people with criminal offences.   As a consequence, investors have been forced to take matters into their own hands running class actions through law firms that take a huge slice of any winnings. Effectively, ASIC has outsourced its enforcement role to the private sector.   http://ab.co/2y90IBY http://ab.co/2K9fJsG   * Not even death stopped some Commonwealth Bank (CBA) customers being hit with fees for financial advice they did not receive, the banking royal commission has heard. The commission has been told advisers at a CBA financial planning business continued to charge fees to customers they knew had died for years. At least five CBA planners admitted to knowingly doing this. The royal commission heard CBA would be the "gold medallist" among the financial institutions, after having to refund more than $100 million for fees charged for no service..   http://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/reports.aspx http://financialservices.royalcommission.gov.au/Pages/interim-report.aspx http://www.abc.net.au/news/story-streams/banking-royal-commission/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/regulation http://ab.co/2YOuHLo http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-05/banking-royal-commission-victims-want-criminal-charges/10777598   http://www.smh.com.au/topic/banking-royal-commission-hql http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/a-consumer-s-guide-to-the-banking-royal-commission-s-final-report-20190128-p50u2t.html http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-exquisite-irony-of-pollies-condemning-bankers-20190208-p50wht.html http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/01/greed-the-common-thread-in-scandals-played-out-at-bank-royal-commission http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/04/key-points-and-recommendations-of-the-banking-royal-commission-report http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/feb/05/the-banking-royal-commission-report-should-be-a-mark-of-shame-for-the-sector http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/banking-royal-commission http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/series/the-transparency-project   Apr. 2018   Wells Fargo hit with $1 Billion in fines over Home And Auto Loan Abuses. (NPR, agencies)   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is levying a $1 billion fine against Wells Fargo — a record for the agency — as punishment for the banking giant''s actions in its mortgage and auto loan businesses.   Wells Fargo''s "conduct caused and was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers," the agency said in its filings about the bank.   Wells Fargo broke the law by charging some consumers too much over mortgage interest rate-lock extensions and by running a mandatory insurance program that added insurance costs and fees into borrowers auto loans, the CFPB said.   Wells Fargo failed to follow its own policies in how it charged fees over locking in mortgage interest rates beyond the standard guaranteed window, the CFPB said, adding that the bank charged customers for the rate extension — even in cases in which the bank itself was the reason for delays in closing on a home loan.   The problems persisted for several years after the bank''s internal audit identified the risk of harming consumers, according to the government''s filing about the settlement. Wells Fargo unfairly and inconsistently applied its policy on rate-extension fees from September 2013 through February 2017, the agency said.   While Wells Fargo would certainly rather avoid the penalty, it’s not going under because of it, either: The bank is expected to make $3.7 billion from the Republican tax bill this year, which is nearly four times what the CFPB fined them.   Wells Fargo agreed to pay $1 billion to the CFPB and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a bank regulator, for both the initial offense and to lock in mortgage rates. The bank has faced numerous penalties in recent years for its bad behavior; some of its practices and business areas, such as a foreign-exchange trade dispute and recommendations made by its wealth division, are still under scrutiny.   It was fined $185 million in September 2016, including $100 million by the CFPB, for issuing millions of fake credit card accounts over a span of years. Wells Fargo’s wealth management business is reportedly under investigation for sales practices similar to what happened with the fake credit card accounts, and the Justice Department is probing its currency trading business. The bank has repeatedly apologized for its repeated misdeeds. http://n.pr/2HigI8j Visit the related web page
	View more stories