The Budget Smoke And Mirrors

The Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has given his budget speech tonight, and he said that for the first time in 12 years the federal budget has returned to surplus.

His first budget includes billions of dollars for tax cuts, major road upgrades and health care. But actually, it is due to return to surplus in the NEXT financial year, and project small surpluses in subsequent years.

He is also spending big ahead of the election, so yes this is political (and in some regards intimating Labor’s policies in places) . This is a “boots and all” approach to try and gain election ground. Reminds me of Howard and Costello!

Net debt is forecast to be $360 billion next financial year, but the Coalition is promising to eliminate it by 2030 if it retains government (if the aggressive assumptions and no slow-down occurs in that time).

But it forecasts lower wages growth, then a jump back to higher rates (why?) and the same is true of economic growth at 2.75% next year, then higher later. Plus a promise for another 1.25 million jobs in the next 5 years (what type of jobs?).

“The budget is back in the black and Australia is back on track,” the treasurer said, announcing that the coalition delivered a $7.1 billion surplus

The Budget forecasts surpluses in each year over the forward estimates, reaching as high as $17.8 billion in 2012-22.

But the budget recognizes a number of risks locally and internationally and is under-funding the NDIS by $3 billion in the next two years.

“The residential housing market has cooled, credit growth has eased and we are yet to see the full impact of flood and drought on the economy.”

The mantra though the speech was that the budget would restore the nation’s finances without raising taxes.

“We are reducing the debt and this interest bill, not by higher taxes, but by good financial management and growing the economy.”

The truth is the budget may go into surplus next year thanks to very high iron ore export prices to China. This was lucky, and is explained by supply disruption from other sources lifting prices.

He makes the point that Australia has a significant national debt which is currently costing $18 billion, and this with interest rates ultra low!

Last year the coalition had announced plans to reduce income taxes for Australians by $144 billion. Now the Treasurer said the government would deliver more than $150 billion in income tax cuts.

From 1 July 2024 taxes will be reduced from 32.5 per cent to 30 per cent for those earning between $45,000 and $200,000.

“Taxes will always be lower under the coalition,” Mr Frydenberg said, adding that small businesses will also get tax relief from the 2019 budget.

“Small business taxes have been reduced to 25 per cent and the instant asset write-off will be increased from $25,000 to $30,000 and can be used every time and asset under that amount is purchased.

“The instant asset write-off will also be expanded to businesses with a maximum turnover of $50 million.”

The coalition will also boost infrastructure spending to $100 billion over the next ten years.

Finally, the Government has matched Labor’s commitment to end a freeze on the Medicare rebate for GP visits from the first of July, as part of a $1.1 billion primary healthcare plan.

Just 3 Years To The Next Banking Inquiry

While the banks would hope the fall-out from the Royal Commission can now be contained, and business as usual can apply, it seems another Inquiry is on the cards down the track, further evidence of continued pressure on the sector.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has told the banks and regulators that they will face an inquiry down the track to ensure they have lifted their game post-royal commission; via InvestorDaily.

In a letter to the ABA, ASIC and APRA, Mr Frydenberg directed the organisations to implement Commissioner Kenneth Hayne’s recommendations from the final report directed at them.

The Treasurer sent out three letters to the heads of the organisations and made it clear that the government wanted to see lasting change within the sector.

“We will establish a follow-up independent inquiry, commencing in three years, to assess changes in industry practice and consumer outcomes since the royal commission,” said Mr Frydenberg.

Alongside implementing recommendations, Mr Frydenberg underlined the importance of ASIC changing its approach to enforcement, particularly shifting to a ‘why not litigate’ stance.

“I am aware that change is already underway, including through the establishment of the Office of Enforcement within ASIC, the move to a ‘why not litigate’ approach to enforcement and the introduction of initiatives such as close and continuous monitoring, to more intensively supervise the sector,” Mr Frydenberg wrote.

Mr Frydenberg committed to ASIC it’s continued support in providing new powers, expanding its role as a super regulator, removing barriers and strengthening penalty provisions.

“The government remains committed to ensuring that ASIC has the resources it needs, and will give further consideration to ASIC’s resourcing needs as part of the 2019–20 budget,” he said.

ASIC and ABA were also told by Mr Frydenberg to work together to create an enforceable banking code of conduct.

“I also expect the ABA to work co-operatively with ASIC to have the relevant provisions of the banking code approved as ‘enforceable code provisions’ as soon as practicable after legislation providing ASIC with these powers has been enacted,” he said.

In a letter to the ABA, the treasurer said he expected the banking code to be amended to support more inclusive practices, expand the definition of small business and eliminate default interest from being charged on loads declared to be impacted by natural disasters.

Mr Frydenberg told ABA chief executive Anna Blight that it was imperative that its members commit to putting customers at the heart of their business.

“I ask that you work with your members to take action and truly commit to restoring trust in the financial system. Only strong and decisive action of the kind that leads to lasting change, will ensure that the misconduct revealed by the royal commission is not repeated and that the public’s trust is regained,” he said.

Mr Frydenberg also called on APRA to strengthen its regulating and enforcement approach and prompted the authority to act on issues relating to the prudential standards, ADI responsibilities and supervision of regulated firms.

“It is my expectation that APRA will consider seriously the findings that the royal commission has made, echoed in the Productivity Commission’s superannuation inquiry, including whether its supervisory approach is appropriate for its mandate with regard to superannuation,” he said.

The Treasurer reiterated the governments support for the body and said it would give further powers and funding to the authority as needed.

The letters come as the opposition party has accused the government of not moving fast enough to implement Commissioner Hayne’s findings.

Labor had tried to force Parliament to hold extra sitting weeks to pass legislation the dealt with the royal commission recommendations but has been unable to get the support of the crossbench.

Royal Commission Report Public Release Delayed

The office of the Treasurer has revealed that the final report will not be released on Friday. 

According to the release, the Australian Government will still receive the final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry on Friday 1 February 2019.

However, it will not be released publicly until 4.10pm on Monday, 4 February. Following its release, the Treasurer will hold a press conference at Parliament House.

The interim report was released in September, when Treasurer Josh Frydenberg released the report the same day. 

During his speech at the time he called the report “frank and scathing” and thanked the commissioner for his work. 

He said the Royal Commission was announced last year because “the culture, conduct and the compliance of the sector is well below the standard the Australian people expect and deserve”.

Via Australian Broker.

RC report release will ‘take into account’ market sensitivity (and may be delayed?)

Via The Adviser.

The final report from the financial services royal commission could be released later than expected, after Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said government will “take into account” its potential market impacts when determining when to release it.

While Commissioner Hayne is said to be “on track” to deliver the final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry to the Governor-General by the agreed deadline of 1 February, there is still uncertainty as to whether the government will release the final report next Friday.

Earlier this week, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen wrote to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg urging him to release the royal commission’s final report – which will likely include recommendations affecting the mortgage broker community – once government receives it.

Writing to the Treasurer, Chris Bowen MP said: “It is in the national interest for the Australian people and victims of banking scandals to be able to access the Hayne banking royal commission’s final report and form their own views, at the earliest opportunity, and that means on Friday, 1 February.

“I have written to the Treasurer requesting the release of the final report and related documents of the banking royal commission as soon as practicable after it is received by the government.”

He continued: “The Liberal Party has no excuses not to release the final report of the Hayne royal commission when they receive it on 1 February.

“Josh Frydenberg released the royal commission’s interim report on the day they received it – and that was appropriate,” he noted.

“Refusing to release the royal commission’s final report immediately would unnecessarily politicise the handling of the report and give rise to potential material market risks around leaks of all or part of the report,” the Shadow Treasurer added.

The Adviser asked the federal Treasurer when the final report from the financial services royal commission would be publicly released.

In a statement, Mr Frydenberg said that any public release of the report and its recommendations would “take into account” its potential market ramifications. 

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said: “The government looks forward to receiving Commissioner Hayne’s final report by 1 February and considering its recommendations as we continue to reform the financial sector.

“The government recognises the potential market sensitivity of the final report and will take this into account in considering the timing of its release.”

This could suggest that the report may be released when the Australian Securities Exchange is closed, for example, in order to protect the stock market.

If the report is released after ASX trading hours, this would make the earliest release of the final report approximately 4pm Sydney time on 1 February, if not later.

However, no particulars have been disclosed by government.

The federal Treasurer added: “One wonders why Chris Bowen is so focused on the timing of the release of the report given last time we released a major report, with the Productivity Commission’s thousand page study into superannuation, he effectively ruled out one of their key recommendations to reform the default system 15 minutes after it was tabled and clearly before he had even read it.”

Further, the Treasurer told an audience at The Sydney Institute on Tuesday (22 January) that the central tenet of the government’s eventual response to the final report would be “restoring trust in the financial system by delivering better consumer outcomes”.

He continued: “This requires a culture of compliance and accountability, regulators that are fit for purpose and an acknowledgement by the sector that people must be put before profits. All of this must be achieved without inadvertently strengthening the position of incumbents or unduly restricting the flow of credit or other vital financial services that Australians need and the economy relies on.

“In his interim report, Commissioner Hayne makes the telling observation that “much more often than not, the conduct now condemned was contrary to the law”. He makes clear that while behaviour was poor, misconduct when revealed was insufficiently punished or not punished at all.

“This raises the issue as to whether new laws are required or whether existing laws simply need to be better enforced. Simplification may be, according to the commissioner, a better route rather than adding ‘an extra layer of legal complexity to an already complex regulatory regime’,” Mr Frydenberg concluded.

Government launches $2bn fund for SME lenders

As expected we are seeing the Government do “unnatural acts” to support the banking sector, in an attempt to alleviate the home price falls and lending freeze ahead of the election next year. The proposed $2 billion funding pool is small beer in the estimated $300 billion SME lending sector.

There is precedent a decade ago when the government’s $15 billion co-investment with the private sector into the residential mortgage-backed securities market during the GFC.

The federal government has announced a new, $2 billion Australian Business Securitisation Fund to help provide additional funding to small business lenders, via The Adviser.

In a joint statement, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Michaelia Cash, have announced that the Australian Business Securitisation Fund (ABSF) will “significantly enhance” the ability for small businesses to access funds by providing “significant additional funding to smaller banks and non-bank lenders to on-lend to small businesses on more competitive terms”.

The Australian Business Securitisation Fund will be administered by the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), which was previously involved in the Residential Mortgage Backed Securities Market in 2008.

Speaking on Wednesday (14 November), the two ministers said: “Small businesses find it difficult to obtain finance other than on a secured basis – typically, against real estate. Small businesses that have already obtained finance secured against real estate, but wish to continue to grow, also find it difficult to access additional funding.

“Even when small businesses can access finance, funding costs are higher than they need to be.

“To overcome this and ensure that small businesses are able to fulfill their potential and continue to underpin economic growth and employment, the Australian Business Securitisation Fund will invest up to $2 billion in the securitisation market, providing significant additional funding to smaller banks and non-bank lenders to on-lend to small businesses on more competitive terms.”

The government has also reiterated that it will “encourage the establishment of an Australian Business Growth Fund to provide longer term equity funding”.

It is now in consultation with the prudential regulator (APRA) and several financial institutions in regard to the establishment of the fund, which could likely emulate overseas counterparts, such as the UK’s Business Growth Fund. This fund has reportedly invested around $2.7 billion in a range of sectors across the economy.

The ministers said: “Many small businesses find it difficult to attract passive equity investment which enables them to grow without taking on additional debt or giving up control of their business.

“A similar fund has not emerged in Australia, in part, as a result of the unfavourable treatment of equity for regulatory capital purposes.”

APRA has reportedly suggested that it is “willing to review these arrangements” to assist in facilitating the establishment of the Australian Business Growth Fund.

The government has said that it will host a series of meetings with stakeholders during the next sitting period in Canbera to “fast track” the establishment of the growth fund.

“With more than three million small businesses employing around seven million Australians, enhancing small business access to funding is part of the Coalition Government’s plan for a stronger economy,” the ministers said in a joint release.

Several players in the finance sector have welcomed the announcement, with NAB’s chief customer officer, business and private banking, Anthony Healy, saying that “the country’s largest business bank recognised that for Australia to continue to grow, SME businesses need better and easier access to capital”.

Mr Healy highlighted that NAB had been providing unsecured lending to small businesses through its QuickBiz channel, “helping SMEs borrow against the strength and cash flow of their business rather than physical bricks and mortar”.

He continued: “The Australian Business Growth Fund can help this further by providing a way in which SMEs can receive long term equity capital investments to grow their business, invest in new technology and create more jobs, which is why NAB is supportive of the concept.

“We do believe there is more that can be done to provide SMEs with access to equity capital, and we take confidence from the UK Business Growth Fund having operated successfully for several years.

“We look forward to further discussions with the federal government and other participants about the fund’s potential establishment soon,” said Mr Healy.

Likewise, Spotcap’s managing director, Lachlan Heussler, said: “Mr Frydenberg’s proposal meets a real financial need and is a win-win for both Australian small business owners and for the alternative lending industry in Australia.

“Without sustainable lending and affordable finance options, small and medium-sized businesses will struggle to grow, innovate and create more jobs for our economy.”

Mr Heussler continued: “Australia’s 2.2 million small and medium-sized businesses are the beating heart of our economy but are starved of working capital and under-served by traditional lenders who require security.

“By lowering borrowing costs, the proposed fund is a good step in increasing competition between the dominant, big lenders and online, unsecured lenders, such as Spotcap”.

The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) likewise welcomed the news, with CEO Peter Strong stating: “We congratulate the hovernment, and the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, on this decision. It’s a well needed game changer for financing of small businesses.”

Mr Strong said that securing access to affordable capital had become the “number one”  challenge for small business owners in Australia, particularly as some banks had “relied solely on past earnings rather than taking future earnings potential into account”.

“As a result, if the business owner doesn’t have a house (or other major asset) to put on the line as security then they are stuck – and Australia misses out on the employment that can be generated by the future growth of these businesses,” he said.

Mr Strong continued: “Small business owners often tell me that the only time they can get a loan is when they no longer need it. Others have told me that they have had to travel overseas to get finance and, using the same business plan as they used in Australia, they get their loan. This was a crazy and damaging situation.”

Mr Strong continued: “It is by no means ‘free money’ but small businesses that are sound and have good growth potential will finally have access to affordable finance.”

Touching on the new growth fund, the COSBOA CEO stated: “Importantly, the Treasurer understands that the announcement would fail if the process of managing the funds is convoluted and complex.

“We, with others, have already been asked to join in designing the system to make sure it is fit for purpose and not made unfit by interference from those who don’t understand our sector. We look forward to working with the Morrison Government, the Treasurer, the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman and other stakeholders to make these two funds accessible for small business owners and start-ups.”

Shock Announcement Collapses Confidence And Trust In Australia’s Financial System

Economist John Adams and I discuss the renewal of Wayne Byres’ tenure at APRA. What does it signal via-a-vis The Royal Commission?


The John Adams And Martin North DFA Page

Please consider supporting our work via Patreon

Please share this post to help to spread the word about the state of things….

The Treasury and the Mugwump Bird

We review the latest Treasury submission to the Financial Services Royal Commission

Please consider supporting our work via Patreon ;

Please share this post to help to spread the word about the state of things….

Banking Strategy
Banking Strategy
The Treasury and the Mugwump Bird



Loading





/

The Treasury’s Mugwump Submission To The Royal Commission

For those who do not know, a mugwump is “a bird who sits with its mug on one side of the fence and its wump on the other.”

That came to mind as I read the Treasury submission to the Royal Commission into Financial Services misconduct which was released recently on three matters:

  • the culture and governance of financial (and other) firms and the related regulatory framework;
  • the capability and effectiveness of the financial system regulators to identify and address misconduct; and
  • conflicts of interest arising from conflicted remuneration and integrated business models.

They say these three issues were drawn from the case studies to date that point to: numerous failures by firms to adhere to existing regulatory obligations and deal openly and honestly with the regulators; an indifference by a number of firms to delivering good consumer outcomes, as well as a lack of investment by some firms in systems and processes to monitor product performance and staff conduct; and at times an unsatisfactory attitude and approach to remediation where issues have been identified.

These outcomes reflect instances of failures of leadership, governance and accountability at an industry, firm and business unit level. Where misaligned incentives and conflicts of interest have been present, the underlying failings and the poor outcomes have been exacerbated.

Competitive forces have been unable to fully temper these problems and hold firms to account. In part this is due to the advantages of incumbency and continuing barriers to entry for new firms. It also reflects a lack of effective demand-side pressure. Consumers, when interacting with the financial system, face products and services that are inherently (or by design) complex, opaque and typically have long durations; conflicted advice can worsen the problem. With ineffective competition, profitability can remain high for financial firms even if consumer outcomes are poor. Their shareholders (both retail and institutional) can remain largely complacent about governance and culture, and consequently poor conduct can persist.

The evidence suggests that while financial system regulators have been alert to the problems and have taken action, they have not yet been able to change the underlying behaviours of many of the firms and industries involved.

In our view, the financial system and the regulatory framework cannot perform efficiently when there is a disregard by financial firms to adherence to the law and broader community standards and expectations regarding their trustworthiness. Fundamentally, responsibility for complying with the law rests with those to whom the obligations apply.

Turning the the Mugwump in Action.

They say that ASIC and APRA are world class regulators, and they were across the issues.  The problem lies within the culture of the firms. And, by the way, the Council of Financial Regulators (of which Treasury is a member) is acting just fine. “At a structural level, Australia’s ‘twin peaks’ model of financial regulation – where responsibility for conduct and disclosure regulation lies with ASIC and responsibility for prudential regulation with APRA – has clearly served the financial system and economy well and remains appropriate. Similar architecture has been adopted in other jurisdictions and ASIC and APRA are well-regarded by peer-regulators in other countries and by international standard setting
bodies and organisations.

They do say it is clear that the current regulatory framework and its enforcement are not delivering satisfactory outcomes and that shareholders’ interests do not necessarily coincide with customers’ interests, particularly in the short-term; indeed much of the misconduct has generated significant returns to the firms that have flowed through to healthy dividends. But the problem is accountability in firms and the complexity of the law. Extending the BEAR, or a like regime, to a wider range of entities may be one way to lift standards of behaviour and conduct across the financial sector. But the fundamental limitation of such reform is that it relies on shareholders to agitate when remuneration policies do not serve consumer interests — and they may not do so.

But they also warn that over time, a financial system that is overburdened by regulation will fail to deliver on its objectives of meeting the financial needs of the community and facilitating a dynamic, stable and growing economy. Thus reforms to ensure consumer confidence through strong respected regulators must balance the efficiency and ability of the financial system as a whole to succeed.

With regards to conflicted remuneration, again they acknowledge that wrong incentives can lead to bad customer outcomes, yet fall short of supporting the idea of, for example, removing broker commissions and trails, warning darkly of unintended consequences.

All remuneration structures and business models can give rise to conflicts of interest, even if its form differs or the parties concerned vary. When markets function well, commercial practices evolve to best manage the multiplicity of interests and potential conflicts. Hence, overly prescriptive interventions —not taking account of all the trade-offs involved — can give rise to costs and unintended consequences.

Our judgment — subject to evidence in future hearings — is that recent structural changes in the industry, recently introduced or soon to be introduced reforms, other potential reforms the Commission could recommend, and heightened attention by firms and ASIC, should be sufficient to mitigate the systemic risks involved — subject to further ongoing scrutiny by regulators. Structural separation would also be complex and disruptive, and could have unintended consequences.

That said, There is clear evidence from the hearings and ASIC that vertically integrated firms have often not appropriately managed these conflicts, despite general legal obligations to do so.

Brokers are currently paid by lenders (via aggregators) using a standard commission model. This model includes upfront and trailing commissions which are proportional to the size of the loan, and subject to clawback arrangements which allow lenders to recover some or all of upfront commissions if a loan goes into significant arrears or is terminated within a specified period. These commissions have also been supplemented by volume and campaign-based bonuses, as well as non-monetary benefits that are predominately determined by volume targets. These features of the standard model give rise to conflicts of interest for brokers that could lead directly to poor consumer outcomes and reduce competition.

There is a risk that brokers working under vertically integrated aggregators may recommend specific in-house loan products that may not provide the best outcome for a consumer. Again, they are also suggestive of a potential negative effect on competition in the mortgage market at the expense of customers more generally.

Proposals for upfront, flat fees can involve up to three distinct changes to current industry practices:

  • a move away from remuneration set by reference to loan size, to one of a fixed dollar amount per loan (possibly still varying with loan or lender type or characteristics);
  • ending the practice of trail commissions; and
  • requiring the payment to be made by the consumer and not the lender.

The first of these would directly target the incentive to encourage customers to take out larger loans, though in practice the consequence of this incentive may be quite limited. It would create some other misaligned incentives that would also need to be managed, such as the need to limit the splitting of a loan into multiple loans to generate additional broker fees.

The industry argues that a larger loan size correlates with greater complexity and hence effort on the part of the broker. If this is correct, brokers could have an incentive under a flat fee to service only those customers with straightforward needs, disadvantaging those with more complex needs such as first home buyers. The correlation between loan size and broker effort is, however, not obvious and commissions can already vary according to product and lender characteristics and flat fees could also do so.

The second change, of removing trail commissions, would have the potential advantage of removing incentives for brokers to inappropriately recommend larger loans that take longer to pay back (though, again, how significant this incentive is in practice is unclear), and brokers would have greater incentives to assist customers to refinance.

The removal of trails would, however, also reduce incentives for brokers to guard against arranging non-performing loans and to not unnecessarily switch consumers to alternative loans that do not provide for a better deal. Refinancing is not a costless exercise, with real costs for both lenders and borrowers. In the United Kingdom, where trails are not used, concern over churn has led lenders to pay retention fees to brokers to encourage consumers not to switch lenders but refinance at a different rate.

Services provided by brokers to customers after a loan has been arranged could also be affected if trailing commissions were removed.

The third change, of requiring consumers rather than lenders to pay the broker, would be the most radical. Without any significant remuneration from lenders, brokers’ loan products and lender recommendations are more likely to align with the consumers’ best interests or be more transparent if they do not. Some specific payments from lenders to brokers may, however, need to be retained if they were to continue to provide specific services to the lender.

The standard commission structure represents a balancing of commercial interests and responsibilities between lenders, aggregators and brokers, as well as the interests of consumers. Too prescriptive and fixed a model risks being commercially inefficient, particularly as the market develops over time and technological and other innovations arise, and negatively affecting competition. While the online and technology based mortgage broker start-ups remain nascent, they are also innovating with remuneration structures (such as rebating commissions to customers) as a point of competitive advantage.

As brokers act as trusted advisers for customers with respect to housing finance, there is an in-principle case for introducing a positive duty on brokers to act in the interests of their customers. While responsible lending obligations provide protection against customers being recommended loans that are too large or otherwise not suitable for them, the purpose of a positive duty would be to counteract incentives to, for example, recommend a particular lender and loan type because the commission available to the broker is higher or because the loan is an in-house or white label product.

Applying a positive duty to brokers would not, however, necessarily be best achieved by attempting to replicate the financial advice best interests duty given differences between brokers and financial advisers, and the existence of responsible lending and other obligations. If it was to be introduced, careful consideration would again need to be given to an approach that mitigates conflicts of interest risks while avoiding unnecessary compliance costs, and to what extent it can rely on industry efforts or providing ASIC with some discretion or rule-making power.

Finally, with regard to employee incentives, the Treasury paper says that given the impending introduction of new powers for ASIC and the efforts of the banking industry to undertake significant reform itself, it is not clear that further regulatory interventions are merited at this stage. While the policy focus has traditionally been around remuneration, it is also relatively easy for firms to reward staff that are high-sellers (or to penalise poor-sellers) without resorting to a direct link to remuneration. As general obligations already exist to manage such conflicts, the broader issue raised is that of firm culture and governance.

S0, reading the submission, I felt the Treasury was firmly sitting on the fence, acknowledging the issues raised (they could do no other), but falling back to incremental changes, warning of unintended consequences, and pointing the figure at cultural bad practice in financial firms. The regulators escaped scot-free.

Frankly I found the submission all rather embarrassing…  and rather missed the point!

I expect the Royal Commission will do better.

The Government Consults On The Retirement Income Framework

According to the Treasury, the retirement phase of the superannuation system is currently under-developed and needs to be better aligned with the overall objective of the superannuation system of providing income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension. The Government is addressing this through the development of a retirement income framework.

The first stage in this framework is the introduction of a retirement income covenant in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, which will require trustees to develop a retirement income strategy for their members. The covenant will codify the requirements and obligations for superannuation trustees to consider the retirement income needs of their members, expanding individuals’ choice of retirement income products and improving standards of living in retirement.

They have published a position paper which outlines the principles the Government proposes to implement in the covenant and supporting regulatory structures. Consultations close 15 June 2018.

The retirement income framework

The retirement phase of the superannuation system is currently under-developed and needs to be better aligned with the overall objective of the superannuation system of providing income in retirement to substitute or supplement the Age Pension. The Government is addressing this through the development of a retirement income framework. The framework is intended to:

  • enable individuals to increase their standard of living in retirement through increased availability and take-up of products that more efficiently manage longevity risk, and in doing so increase the efficiency of the superannuation system and better align the system with its objective; and
  • enable trustees to provide individuals with an easier transition into retirement by offering retirement income products that balance competing objectives of high income, flexibility and risk management.

In December 2016, a discussion paper on Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement (CIPRs) was released for consultation[1]. Submissions closed on 7 July 2017. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) received 57 written submissions on the discussion paper, and met with more than 100 organisations.

That consultation revealed that there is broad agreement on the importance of what the CIPRs policy is seeking to achieve, but divergent views on the best way to achieve the objectives.

In addition, some stakeholders stressed the importance of finalising the social security treatment of pooled lifetime income products first. The Government announced the treatment of the social security means test rules for new and existing pooled lifetime income products in the 2018‑19 Budget.

Having taken steps to remove barriers to the introduction of pooled lifetime income products, the Government plans to prioritise progress on the development of a retirement income covenant.

The Government has also announced it will progress the development of simplified, standardised metrics in product disclosure to help consumers make decisions about the most appropriate retirement income product for them. Other elements of the framework will be developed progressively:

  • reframing superannuation balances in terms of the retirement income stream they can provide, by facilitating trustees to provide retirement income projections during the accumulation phase; and
  • a regulatory framework to support the other elements of the retirement income framework including definitions, any necessary safe harbours, requirements for managing legacy products and other details.

Retirement income covenant

On 19 February 2018 the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer MP, announced the establishment of a consumer and industry advisory group to assist in the development of a framework for CIPRs.

The central task of the advisory group was to provide advice to Treasury on possible options and scope of a retirement income covenant in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act). The group strongly supported the idea of a retirement income covenant and provided advice on the proposed framework. This feedback has helped shape the proposed approach set out in this paper.

As part of the Government’s More Choices for a Longer Life Package in the 2018-19 Budget, the Government has committed to introducing a retirement income covenant as a critical first stage to the Government’s proposed retirement income framework. This will codify the requirements and obligations for superannuation trustees to improve retirement outcomes for individuals.

Existing covenants in the SIS Act include obligations to formulate, review regularly and give effect to investment, risk management and insurance strategies; but not a retirement income strategy.

Introducing a retirement income covenant will require trustees to consider the retirement income needs and preferences of their members. It will ensure that Australian retirees have greater choice in how they take their superannuation benefits in retirement. This should allow retirees to more effectively choose a retirement product that aligns with their preferences, improving outcomes in retirement. The proposed obligations for inclusion in the covenant are outlined in the section ‘Covenant principles’.

The covenant will be supported by regulations to provide additional guidance and outline in more detail how trustees will be required to fulfil their obligations. Appropriate enforcement will also be part of the framework. The ‘Supporting principles’ section outlines the principles and guidelines that would be included in regulations (and possibly prudential standards). Implementation of these regulations may require adjustments to existing regulations and instruments.

Finally, additional principles have been identified that may be appropriate for inclusion in the retirement income framework, but which are not being fully developed at this time. These principles will form part of the regulatory framework to be progressed at a later date.

The covenant and supporting principles would apply to trustees of all types of funds except Australian eligible rollover funds (ERFs) and defined benefit (DB) schemes that offer a DB lifetime pension. The Government considers that it would not be appropriate to require trustees of these fund types to develop a retirement income strategy because ERFs do not have any members in retirement and a DB lifetime pension already reflects an implicit retirement income strategy.

While all members of the advisory group provided valuable input and insights which have helped inform this position paper, the positions expressed in this paper are those of the Government.

The retirement income framework, including the covenant, will be implemented with an appropriate transition period to allow sufficient time for industry to adjust. The Government proposes to legislate the covenant by 1 July 2019 but to delay commencement until 1 July 2020.  This timing would allow the market for pooled lifetime income products to develop in response to the changes to the Age Pension means test arrangements announced as part of the 2018-19 Budget and for other elements of the framework to be settled.

[1] Treasury, Development of the framework for Comprehensive Income Products for Retirement, Canberra, 2016.

Government Response to Review into Open Banking

On 9 May 2018, the Government agreed to the recommendations of the Review, both for the framework of the overarching Consumer Data Right and for the application of the right to Open Banking, with a phased implementation from July 2019.

The Government will phase in Open Banking with all major banks making data available on credit and debit card, deposit and transaction accounts by 1 July 2019 and mortgages by 1 February 2020.

Data on all products recommended by the Review will be available by 1 July 2020. All remaining banks will be required to implement Open Banking with a 12-month delay on timelines compared to the major banks. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will be empowered to adjust timeframes if necessary.

The Treasury will be consulting on draft legislation, the ACCC will be consulting on draft rules, and Data61 will be consulting on technical standards over the coming months.

From The Budget

The government has unveiled its 2018-19 federal budget, which revealed plans to support an open banking framework; the acceleration of the GovPass program; exploring the use of blockchain for government; and the promotion of the industry.

The government will pledge $44.6 million across four years from 2018-19 for the creation of a “national consumer data right”.

The CDR will help “consumers and small to medium enterprises to access and transfer their data between service providers in designated sectors,” the budget papers said.

Over four years, the $44.6 million – which also includes $1.4 million in capital funding in 2018-19 – will be split across three government agencies:

  • The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) will receive $19.6 million;
  • CSIRO will receive $11.6 million; and
  • The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) will receive $12.1 million.

A fact sheet from industry body FinTech Association said the ACCC’s role would be to “oversee sectors that will be subject to the CDR”.

Meanwhile, CSIRO would set data standards, with the funds going into innovation centre Data 61; and the OAIC will “assess the privacy impact” of the CDR.