The only "high level of uncertainty" the removal of the catch-all requirement to act solely in the client's best interest is that created in the Bank's mind - not the consumers!

As to Westpac's proposition that the watering-down of the FoFA requirements is "necessary to ensure consumer protection", I'd only encourage the Senate Committee to jump on IView and watch what last Monday's Four Corners expose on the CBA's version of consumer protection.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Lets be clear, crystal clear. General advice from an untrained branch teller, remunerated by commission IS NOT 'advice' that any consumer wants or needs, regardless of how 'cheap' it appears to be.

The ability to sell all manner of financial products to the public, through staff even less qualified than the financial advisers (for which training and qualifications are already constant source of industry embarrassment). Pay them a commission to do so and then if anything goes wrong "oh, it was general advice only we are not responsible". Wow, practically a lotto win for financial institutions?

Anyone within the world of banking and finance understands this, therefore statements to the contrary are just conflicted interest nonsense. The only people making such statements..... surprise surprise are those who stand to profit from it. Every other bank has thus far had the smarts to keep their mouth shut and lobby in private, not so for Westpac it seems.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.