Ethics and Professionalism in Financial Sector

Running head: ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM IN FINANCIAL SECTOR
ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM IN FINANCIAL SECTOR
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM IN FINANCIAL SECTOR1
The report forwarded by the Hayne Royal Commission discussed the chief issue that how
the poor standards in connection to record keeping made contributions towards the concerns
relating to ‘fees for no service’.
The ‘fees for no service’ is in relation to the four primary banking institutions, namely,
AMP, CBA, Westpac, ANZ and Macquarie. According to the ASIC, the major banking
institutions (i.e. the banks mentioned above), have irrationally delayed the submission of the
reviews regarding the failure of the ‘fees for no service’, which the banks were asked to conduct
by ASIC. As per the Commissioner of ASIC, Danielle Press, the delay caused by the
aforementioned institutions in the submission of their reviews, paved the way for the
Government to allow the ASIC certain directions, authorities and powers in order to increase the
speediness and swiftness of the remediation plans and programs in future days. The ASIC
Enforcement Review Taskforce Report of the year 2017 stated that one of the primary reasons
that led to such delay and postponement by the institutions is poor and pitiable record-keeping.
Due to such record-keeping, the major banking institutions of the nation of Australia have been
unsuccessful to assess the files in relation to the customers in an adequate manner. It may be said
that although the aforementioned allegations are in relation to five major banking institutions of
the nation, the Royal Commission has primarily focused on CBA and AMP. According to the
report of the ‘Australian Financial Review’, it may be said that a particular policy was followed
by AMP. This policy was known as ‘ringfencing’. As per this particular policy, the customers
were charged with fees without the delivery of any kind of service for a time period amounting
to ninety days, after any particular customer left AMP or any advisor affiliated to AMP. It had
been notified to AMP by the legal advisors of AMP that such charging of fees cannot be
considered to be legal. However, such notification had been ignored by AMP. It has been stated