Australian banks may exit wealth management without being forced
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
[WELLINGTON] Australian banks are likely to get out of their wealth-management businesses without the need for government to force divestment, according to the head of a parliamentary banking inquiry.
"You will see over time banks will get out of their wealth management businesses because it is an area that has caused them problems and it's a relatively small proportion of their business," ruling Liberal Party lawmaker David Coleman told Sky News Australia Sunday.
"I'm not sure I would support forced divestment."
The opposition Labor Party wants a so-called royal commission into the banking industry, with some of its parliamentarians urging a breakup of the nation's biggest lenders amid claims a lack of competition allows borrowing costs to be kept too high.
The government's response, based on its 2016 inquiry, is closer scrutiny on how retail interest rates are being set, Mr Coleman said.
The inquiry found that of the 20 times bank lending rates moved out of step with the Reserve Bank's benchmark rate since 2000, it was bad for borrowers on 19 occasions, Mr Coleman said.
Navigate Asia in
a new global order
Get the insights delivered to your inbox.
Now regulators are able to go into banks, get documents and will identify whether an institution was justified in raising interest rates, he said.
Banks and their executives could face action in terms of misleading or deceptive conduct.
"We need to ensure every bank executive knows that the representations they are making publicly about interest rates are now subject to deep internal scrutiny," Mr Coleman said.
BLOOMBERG
Share with us your feedback on BT's products and services
TRENDING NOW
Vietnam formalises new state leadership, redefining ‘four pillars’ power balance
‘Largest Singapore commercial S-Reit proxy’: analysts say buy CICT shares after Paragon acquisition
From 1MDB to ‘corporate mafia’: Is Malaysia facing a new governance test?
Why where you park your joint venture matters: Lessons from a US$689 million shareholder dispute