Showing posts with label banks and bankers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label banks and bankers. Show all posts

Tuesday, 16 July 2024

To find that the ANZ, Bendigo and Adelaide, Commonwealth and Westpac banks are not above squeezing the poor is not really news - but to find that one particular squeeze employed by these banks seemingly targeted Aboriginal customers living in regional & remote areas is shocking


 

Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC). media release:


Bigbanks to refund millions in fees to low-income customers followingASIC report

Published 15 July 2024


Bank customers on low incomes, including First Nations customers, will be refunded over $28 million dollars after a first-of-its-kind ASIC review revealed four Australian banks systemically charged high fees to those customers who could least afford it.


ASIC's Report 785 Better banking for Indigenous Consumers (REP 785) found that the ANZ, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, CBA and Westpac kept at least two million Australians on low incomes, including many relying on Centrelink payments to make ends meet, in high-fee accounts.


ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland said the banks had caused financial distress through avoidable fees and complicated bank processes, often creating barriers for regional and remote consumers.


Banks knew that many of these customers on low-incomes were in inappropriate high-fee accounts, and it has taken ASIC’s intervention to force them to act,’ Commissioner Kirkland said.


Before our review, most banks only provided their customers with difficult 'opt-in' processes for switching to low-fee banking options, including forcing some consumers to travel hundreds of kilometres to their nearest bank branch.’


ASIC’s review was focussed on improving financial outcomes for First Nations consumers by addressing avoidable bank fees. The findings have resulted in broader outcomes for people on low incomes nationwide.


Following ASIC's review, the banks have migrated more than 200,000 customers into low-fee accounts, saving these customers an estimated $10.7 million in future yearly savings.


As a result of ASIC’s review banks will return over $28 million in fees to these customers over the next 12 to 18 months, including $24.6 million to be refunded to customers receiving ABSTUDY payments and those in areas with significant First Nations populations. [my yellow highlighting]


Commissioner Kirkland welcomed the steps the banks had taken but said more needed to be done to ensure the issue didn't happen again.


This is the second report from ASIC in the last two months that highlights where banks have failed to put customers’ needs at the heart of their operations,’ Commissioner Kirkland said.


It highlights the impact the banking system can have on Australians. Fair banking services for all Australians, including those on low-incomes or located in regional or remote areas, are critical for our financial system.


Banks need to ensure they have systems and processes in place so customers on low incomes can easily transition to low-fee accounts, regardless of their location.


We expect all banks – not just those we reviewed for this report – to consider these findings, improve the accessibility and distribution of low-fee accounts and commit adequate resourcing to specialist First Nations services,’ he said.


Download


Report 785 Better banking for Indigenous Consumers (REP 785)


Infographic: ASIC’s Better banking for Indigenous consumers project (PDF 1.2 MB)


Better banking for Indigenous consumers report: Case studies (PDF 747 KB)


Background


ASIC’s review focussed on banks with a presence in regional and remote locations. In July 2023, ASIC wrote to the banks calling on them to improve their processes and target market determinations (TMDs) and refund past fees incurred by low-income customers in high-fee bank accounts.


ASIC analysed each banks’ TMDs and data on fees charged to customers on low incomes. ASIC considered how banks met the design and distribution obligations and asked each bank to address fee harm for people on low-incomes in high-fee transaction accounts.


REP 785 is an outcome of ASIC’s Indigenous Outreach Program, which works with a range of organisations, including the financial services industry, to influence system change and drive positive financial outcomes for First Nations peoples. The outcomes align with ASIC's Indigenous Financial Services Framework and ASIC's Reconciliation Action Plan. This is the first intervention project of its kind to compel widespread meaningful benefits for low-income consumers, including First Nations customers since the release of ASIC’s Indigenous Financial Services Framework.


ASIC advises all consumers to talk to their bank to understand what fees they are paying. For further information they could speak to a free and confidential financial counsellor at the National Debt Helpline or through Mob Strong debt helpline.


Wednesday, 3 July 2024

Over five years since the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry & yet banks are still behaving badly


Just over a month ago a parliamentary in inquiry told the general public what it had long suspect - that Australia's banks were reducing the number of storefronts with a total of 596 towns that once had between one or four major banks by 2023 having no form of bank at all.


According to Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's May 2024 Inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia, there were 2,802 banks in 1,126 regional locations across Australia in 1975.


However, just 958 remained open by March 2023 - a cut of 66 per cent of the network or a loss of 1844 banks in 1031 regional towns, cities and coastal communities in just over 45 years.


So why is this happening? It can't solely be as a consequence of the global pandemic or subsequent international or domestic economic pressures. 


PAST PREDICTIONS VS PRESENT BEHAVIOUR


Wilson, Therese, "Banks behaving badly" [2004] AltLawJl 88; Alternative Law Journal 294:


The 'deregulation' of banking in Australia during the 1980s has been cited as a major reason for banks pursuing profitable transactions and avoiding what they perceive to be higher risk transactions. Whilst the Wallis lnquiry predicted increased competition in the financial services market that would bring about affordable financial services for all Australians, no such competition has emerged.....


Banks are now trying to attract and retain what they regard as a 'more profitable' group of customers, and have tended to close banks in areas populated by low-income earners. Fees on savings accounts have increased, and tend to be waived only for customers with home loans or investments with the bank, or members of professional associations. Further, very heavy fees are imposed for defaults such as cheques that bounce or overdrawn accounts. Low-income earners are left without the ability to save in any substantial manner, and without access to 'safe credit'. This results in 'financial exclusion' defined as:

lack of access to financial services by individuals or communities due to their geographic location, economic Situation or any other anomalous social condition which prevents people from fully participating in the economic and social structures of mainstream communities.


BEHAVIOURAL CHANGE - FACT OR MYTH?


It's over five years since the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry handed down its final report.


Yet banks are still behaving badly.


In June 2023 the Banking Code Compliance Committee (BCCC) reported:


....a concerning increase in breaches of Part 9 of the Code, which contains the crucial obligations to support customers facing financial difficulty. The almost 40% increase of these breaches is alarming.


In a time marked by escalating inflation and living costs, the imperative for banks to provide support to customers in financial difficulty cannot be overstated. Breaches of these obligations can lead to serious consumer detriment.


Banks reported failing to respond to financial hardship requests, persisting with debt collection activities despite hardship arrangements being in place, and neglecting to follow through on agreed-upon hardship arrangements. Such failings not only breach Code obligations, but they also contribute to a decline in trust and confidence in the industry.


Nine banks (including three major banks) contributed to the 4,415 Part 9 breaches between July 2022 and June 2023.


The poor practices and non-compliance identified in a June 2023 BCCC report fell into three categories:


1. Fees and charges for services no longer provided

Banks continuing to apply fees and charges to accounts of deceased customers despite

being notified of their passing.

2. Failing to act within timeframes

Banks failing to act on requests or instructions within the obligatory 14 days of receiving notifications or information.

3. Lack of respect and compassion

Banks failing to treat representatives and family of deceased customers with the respect and compassion expected in the circumstances.


That report noted:


On the specific issue of fees being charged for services no longer provided on deceased estates, banks committed to rectifying the issues and had plans in place to improve processes.


Some banks were aware of the issues before our inquiry and had already begun comprehensive improvements and remediation programs.


However, given the time since the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry – of which fees for no service, in the context of failure to provide personal financial advice, was a key focus – and the findings of our inquiry, this action has been slow and inconsistent.


Many banks were on notice of the harm caused by fees for no service from ASIC’s investigations into financial advice misconduct in 2015. ASIC reported that, at the end of 2022, banks and financial institutions had provided over $4.7 billion in compensation under remediation programs for loss or detriment due to financial advice misconduct.


Charging fees, including to people known to have died, was a key focus of the second-round hearings on financial advice at the Royal Commission in 2018.


On 2 July 2024 BCCC issued a media release announcing:


The Banking Code Compliance Committee (BCCC) has sanctioned ANZ for not stopping or refunding fees for deceased estates, as well as not responding to representatives of deceased estates within the required timeframe.


Between July 2019 and September 2023, ANZ breached its Code obligations by failing to stop or refund fees charged to deceased estates after customers’ deaths.


ANZ further breached its Code obligations by not responding to instructions or requests for information from representatives of deceased estates within the required 14 days.


Chair of the BCCC, Ian Govey AM, noted the seriousness of the breaches.


The decision to name ANZ for its non-compliance reflects the seriousness of its Code breaches," Mr Govey said.


Naming a bank is a sanction that we reserve for the most serious and systemic breaches.


The significance of the deficiencies in ANZ’s compliance frameworks was deeply concerning. Its non-compliance warranted such a sanction," said Mr Govey.


Despite first identifying the issues in early 2022, ANZ took over a year to implement solutions and then nearly two years to start its customer remediation program, which is still ongoing and expected to be finalised by the end of July 2024.


Mr Govey noted concerns with the remediation efforts from ANZ.


The remediation did not meet expectations. Once aware of the issues, ANZ did not act with sufficient urgency to remediate the affected customers. It should have done more to address this more quickly,” Mr Govey said.


However, the BCCC acknowledged that ANZ’s remediation included the use of assumptions beneficial to customers, including reimbursing charges that may already have been refunded.


The BCCC also found that another bank had breached obligations by failing to stop or refund certain fees charged to deceased estates after customers’ deaths.


However, in that case, the sanction from the BCCC was to formally warn the bank about its conduct.


In the previous month June 2024 BCCC had announced:


The Banking Code Compliance Committee (BCCC) has sanctioned Westpac Bank for serious and systemic breaches of the Banking Code of Practice (the Banking Code) after it failed to provide adequate support to customers following the closure of its branch in Tennant Creek, Northern Territory.


The BCCC’s investigation revealed that Westpac did not comply with its obligations under the Banking Code and the Australian Banking Association’s (ABA) Branch Closure Protocol when it closed its Tennant Creek branch in September 2022.


The findings show that Westpac needed to do much more to support customers to transition to other ways of banking, engage with the community to promptly address concerns, and provide adequate assistance to customers in remote areas to ensure they could still access essential banking services....


Saturday, 25 November 2023

Tweet of the Week



Friday, 6 October 2023

Is social media platform "X" now a financial blackhole threatening to consumer its investors & 'inconvenience' its bankers?

 

Reuters, 4 October 2023:


NEW YORK, Oct 3 (Reuters Breakingviews) - X is still worth something, but not for the people running it. Boss Linda Yaccarino is set to present her plans for the social network formerly known as Twitter to bankers holding nearly $13 billion of its debt, the Financial Times reported. Looming over talks is the likelihood that X’s value is substantially less than even that figure.


This week’s meeting with seven banks led by Morgan Stanley (MS.N) that supported Elon Musk’s $44 billion acquisition of the platform caps off a tumultuous first four months for Yaccarino, a former advertising executive at Comcast-owned (CMCSA.O) NBCUniversal. That includes a contentious interview last week in which she seemed caught off-guard by Musk’s announced ambition to charge X users a monthly fee to combat bots.


Despite Musk’s big pronouncements about pushing into subscriptions, X has historically relied on advertising, which contributed over 90% of revenue when it was a public company. But that business is spiraling, and the platform’s shifting policies could threaten more branding deals. In July, Musk posted that cash flow was negative because of a 50% drop in advertising sales.


The apparent strategic disconnect between the company’s ad-focused chief executive and its subscription-hungry owner comes as valuations are falling. TikTok parent ByteDance was recently valued at $224 billion, down by about a quarter from a year ago, the Information reported. Disappearing messaging app Snap’s (SNAP.N) market value has slumped by more than 10% over the past year.


Put it all together, and X isn’t just worth less than Musk paid for it, but likely less than its debt. Assume that the company’s revenue last year was $4.7 billion, based on results before it was taken private. If advertising has dropped by half, then this year’s sales should be a bit over $2.5 billion. Put that on the same enterprise-value-to-sales multiple as Snap, which is down to a mere 3 times, and X is worth around $8 billion.


The company is so far covering its hefty interest payments of $300 million per quarter, and Yaccarino sees profitable days ahead. But between Musk’s impromptu product shifts and the need to woo back advertisers, her task is daunting. If things deteriorate further, the company’s bankers - already nursing billions in on-paper losses - face the prospect of taking back the keys to a diminished platform that is worth less than even their claim on it. Like a financial black hole, X threatens to consume most of whatever value it once had.


(The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)



The seven banks which reportedly facilitated Musk’s US$13 billion loan arrangements so that he could purchase Twitter Inc/“Twitter” now known as X Corp/“X”:


Bank of America

Barclays

BNP Paribas - $6.5 billion term loan facility

Mizuho - $500 million revolving loan facility

Morgan Stanley - $3 billion secured bridge loans

MUFG - $3 billion unsecured bridge loans

Societe Generale

[Reuters, 7 October 2023]



BACKGROUND


USA Today, 4 October 2023, excerpt:


X, formerly known as Twitter, has lost most of the guardrails it once had. Massive employee cuts, in particular, to content moderation teams, more divisive content, the removal of state-affiliated media labels, and a blind allegiance to free speech by Elon Musk have made the platform much more susceptible to misinformation and disinformation. COVID, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the 2024 election are all vulnerable topics…..


Dana Taylor:


Pivoting to the 2024 US presidential election, there are quite a few nefarious forces out there including both state and non-state actors who are chipping away at American's confidence in election integrity and would like nothing more than to see the US democracy fail. Elon Musk also recently announced he was cutting X'S global election integrity team in half. Is it looking worse than 2020? And if so, how?


Josh Meyer:


For the story that I wrote, I talked to a lot of experts in, I do think there was a tremendous amount of concern that this could be the worst one ever. Hopefully that won't be the case, but we have a lot of state run actors now. We've got China, Iran, and, of course, Russia looking to meddle in the election. You've got a lot of right-wing extremist groups doing it. Some of the security information specialists that I talked to said you even have kids in their parents' basement who could manipulate things…..


According to Fiber in 2021 there were 5.8 million Twitter users in Australia.



Wednesday, 9 November 2022

Australia is seeing mortgage stress and other cost-of-living pressures rise, but we can avoid the financial impact being felt in the UK and US, says a UNSW Business School real estate expert


A perspective on the national economy, inflationary pressures, interest rates, house prices, household budgets and cost of living......





UNSW, media release, 7 November 2022:





What happens to the economy if you can't pay your home loan?


Australia is seeing mortgage stress and other cost-of-living pressures rise, but we can avoid the financial impact being felt in the UK and US, says a UNSW Business School real estate expert.


For economists – and indeed, anyone else with an interest on how much they spend at the supermarket – cost-of-living and housing prices have been hot topics in 2022. The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has been trying to combat rising inflation with interest rate raises (read how that works here).


The latest rise was announced by the RBA last week on November 1, with the official cash rate rising to 2.85 per cent.


This process has contributed to a fall in house prices in some areas, as well as fears from mortgage holders that they won't be able to make payments on the now larger amounts.


“Australians have been fortunate to see sustained house price growth for a while now,” says economist and expert in real estate markets, Dr Kristle Romero CortĂ©s Associate Professor in the School of Banking & Finance, UNSW Business School. “But they need to know, house prices can come down too.”


But while data from the Domain Group (shares of which are majority owned by Nine Media) might have recently shown the sharpest quarterly decline in house prices since 1994 across the country’s biggest capital cities, Dr Romero CortĂ©s isn’t unduly concerned about house price falls.


“Commentary on the housing market is quite sensationalised in the media.”


But when it comes to not being able to pay the mortgage, and the impact higher loan repayments might have on the economy? That’s a bit more complicated to predict.


Why Australia may not follow other countries into financial disaster


Australians only have to look over to the United Kingdom to feel nervous when witnessing the impact of high inflation and interest rates on the economy and the day-to-day lives of financial situation of its citizens.


Like Australia, the UK’s central bank (the Bank of England) has introduced a series of interest rate hikes that have had a limited effect. Unlike Australia, the UK economy is still reeling from Brexit, plus a post-pandemic recovery, high inflation and energy costs, and levels of wage stagnation that have seen various sections of the working population strike.


The country has also just experienced the effects of a disastrous set of economic policies and extensive tax cuts for the wealthy implemented by Liz Truss as prime minister, which would have put money into in an already inflated economy (where the idea is to usually ‘cool’ things by encouraging people not to spend).


This spooked the financial markets to such a degree that investors quickly sold off British assets, including government bonds. The value of the pound plunged, forced the Bank of England to take an unprecedented step and pledge 65 billion pounds worth of bonds to stop pension funds from failing and stabilise the market … and caused Liz Truss to resign after just 44 days.


For the average Briton, this situation has led to a greater threat of recession: something which could lead to loss of jobs, higher unemployment, higher inequality, wage growth that is too low to match price increases, and issues meeting costs, such as regular mortgage payments that have already risen because of interest rate hikes.


But does the UK situation foreshadow D-R-A-M-A for the Australia’s own economy and housing market? Dr Romero CortĂ©s says no – for several reasons.


Australians are fans of variable rate loans - unlike in the UK


As well as not experiencing a Brexit-like crash or an energy price crunch to the same degree, a big point of difference is that Australians are more likely to have opted for the more flexible variable rate mortgages, than in the UK, where homeowners are more likely to have picked fixed rate mortgage.


In the UK, 74 per cent of homeowners have a fixed rate mortgage for their home loans, and 96 per cent have chosen this option since 2019, according to data from UK-based trade association, UK Finance. AMP Capital data shows that Australia has a higher share of mortgage holders with variable rate mortgages. Just 10-15 per cent picked fixed rates before 2020 (although this rose to 40 per cent in 2020-2021).


While variable rate mortgages can be a great option when interest rates are low in the short-term, fixed rate mortgages can be more predictable over the long-term, as they are less impacted by interest rate rises that can raise overall home loan repayments.


“What we see in the US or Europe is not necessarily what we will see here,” Dr Romero CortĂ©s says. “The US Federal Reserve (Fed) or the Bank of England are also effectively trying to slow down the economy, but when they raise their rates, they can't reach a large portion of homeowners that have a 30-year fixed rate mortgage.


“The Fed and the Bank of England can raise cash rates all they want – they are not reaching these homeowners.


“In Australia, our increases from the RBA pass through the banks almost instantaneously to the consumers,” she explains. “There is a slight delay because banks want to give borrowers as much time as possible to budget in an increase, but that rate does flow through almost automatically in a way that's much faster here than you'll see in countries like the US and UK.”


This means, faster possible cooling impacts on the economy with the RBA puts interest rate hikes in place.


Another big factor is that the big four Australian banks are highly capitalised.


“They are flush with cash,” explains Dr Romero CortĂ©s. “I study the financial network in Australia, and it is very sound. We won’t see the kind of crisis that we saw in the US in 2008, where the banks were holding assets that they didn't understand the underlying worth of.”


What does that mean for mortgage stress and the Australian economy?


Dr Romero CortĂ©s say that while lifting of interest rates might mean Australia will see mortgage stress rise faster than in other places, it is this situation that helps the RBA prevent the economy from “running red hot” and collapsing in on itself.


“Like any central bank, the RBA wants to ensure price stability, and they will do whatever it takes to prevent us from losing this. They don’t want consumables like bread and eggs to suddenly be seven times as much the next day. If that happens people will revolt, effectively.


“We're nowhere near there. But that's why we don't want to get anywhere near there. So, the RBA stay very much on top of this, and their role is to keep this issue as front and centre of the Australian public for as long as they need, so they are more cautious with their spending over a longer period of time.”


It’s in this way that the RBA plays a psychological stabilising role, not just a financial one.


“You know, ‘Okay, the RBA is on this: so, I don't need to freak out’,” says Dr Romero CortĂ©s. “Because if you as a member of the financial public start freaking out, you’re more likely to make poor financial decisions which have more of a domino effect on the wider economy.”


Having said that, there is a limit to how much financial stress homeowners can undergo.


"There could be a point where homeowners and others can't withstand the raising of monthly repayments any longer,” she says. “This is not yet the case.


“Long term, you would expect some sort of horizon where things settle around 4 or 5 per cent cash rate. Australia is highly leveraged (meaning it has an on average high level of debt to equity), so more than that would be difficult to sustain.”


Banks don’t want to see mortgage defaults


At the end of the day, lenders don’t want homeowners to default on loans or to proceed with a repossession. It’s costly, in time, effort and capital for them, says Dr Romero CortĂ©s. They would much rather work with the borrower before they get to that point of extreme financial difficulties.


“A homeowner in financial stress would contact your bank, who would require some documentation of financial hardship, and then would work with you either in a payment plan or deferral plan, refinancing or making interest-only payments.”


Remember: you're not getting out of it. You still pay it, the interest is still accruing, and it could lengthen the loan term. All this means that borrowers are going to consume less in other places, and therefore is supposed to lead to a ‘cooling’ of the economy.


What happens if cost of living doesn’t come down?



But if living here gets too hard and expensive with inflation or higher mortgage repayments, you could see Australia reputation as ‘a good place to live’ take a hit, pushing down the number of people who want to live here, and putting further pressure on an already tight labour market, says Dr Romero CortĂ©s.


For example, a portion of all the Australians with overseas heritage might decide Australia is too hard and expensive to live in and move to their other country of citizenship. That’s when it might start to get uncomfortable.


"Australia has an economy that's built up by people wanting to come to Australia, and we’re constantly growing in that fashion,” explains Dr Romero CortĂ©s. “There's demand for housing, education, and we currently have people willing to come here.


“So, the government can say whatever they want about the RBA [and their decision to raise rates] so they will get voted in again. But the RBA doesn’t have a choice: one family defaulting on their mortgage, compared to everyone not being able to afford bread, is what they are envisioning.”


Does all this mean house prices will come down more?


Higher mortgage repayments could pressure homeowners to accept lower sale prices than they might have expected from their property, investment or otherwise; nudging down overall prices on the property market over a period of time, as well as the occasional ‘fire sale’.


Are you going to see a massive crash of house prices where you see a Bondi four-bedder going for $500,000? No.


“But we could see a small depression in prices where 5 to 10 per cent of the price is cut. Even if you cut off 10 per cent from a $2 million home, that's $200,000 less. This means unless they have to, sellers are not going to want to sell.”


All this means it is true you're going see some very high mortgage payments and additional cost of living pressures as homeowners prioritise their mortgage repayments, Dr Romero Cortés points out.


“It’s also true that politicians (who are complaining about the RBA’s approach) may be among those who own a lot of investment properties themselves.”


Dr Kristle Romero Cortés is an Associate Professor in the School of Banking & Finance in the Business School at UNSW Sydney, an expert in real estate economics and formerly worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.


Friday, 12 November 2021

So what do you know about the people behind management of the Morrison Government's punitive Cashless Debit Card? Perhaps it's time to meet Indue Limited's board of directors & their industry partners


 

IMAGE: news.com.au, 30.01.2019


Just as night follows day, if Scott John Morrison and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition win the federal government election, by the last quarter of 2022 he will announce all government cash transfers to citizens will in future come via the highly restrictive and punitive cashless debit card scheme.


So who has been milking the cash cow as they constructed the mechanism for Morrison's dream of a frightened, deprived and suppressed working class he could strut before?


Well that an easy question to answer - just hit this link 

https://www2.indue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/J0982-Indue-Annual-Report-2021_WEB.pdf  and scroll down to pages 14-15 to see their six self-satisfied faces along with a brief bio.


A bit of background......


Sometime in early 2016 the Australian Government through its agency the Dept. of Social Services entered into a contract with Indue Limited, currently valued at $70,340,628.60 (original value: $7,859,509). This contract period now extends from 26-Feb-2016 to 31-Dec-2022.


Indue Limited documents clearly state that its investors-shareholders are “the owners of the company” and that those who contract the company’s services are its “clients” or “customers”.


In relation to the cashless debit card scheme it administers, it appears that the relatively large class of mandatory users of this card during this extended trial period & the somewhat smaller number of voluntary users are simply end product consumers.


How Indue Limited sees itself:……..


Indue Limited ABN 97 087 822 464 (“Indue”) is a bank and Authorised Deposit-Taking Institution (“ADI”) that is regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Indue is owned by financial institutions, each of which is also an ADI. Indue provides transaction processing and settlement services to credit unions, building societies, church funds, mortgage originators, commercial clients and the Australian government. Many clients would be too small individually to be able to provide a competitive alternative financial services offering without Indue.


Indue has over 40 years’ experience in the payments industry and as a financial product issuer since 1992. Indue is a principal member of Visa, MasterCard and eftpos, and holds an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL). It is also a reporting entity pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering (AML)/Counter-Terrorism Financing (CTF) legislation. [Submission to the Australian Treasury. 7 September 2018, excerpt]


Indue Limited has 7 major partners which includes it being a principal member of Visa licensed to issue all Visa card products including credit, debit, prepaid, commercial and premium cards; ia member of eftpos and licensed to issue eftpos card products. These cards may be used in ATMs and eftpos terminals throughout the domestic Australian eftpos network; and, ia member of BPAY allowing us to offer both payer and biller facilities to clients.


2019-20


Indue’s vision is to be the leading partner of payment solutions to our customers. Indue’s mission is to drive competitive advantage for our customers by helping people pay….


Wholly owned Group

The Company does not have significant restrictions on its ability to access or use its assets and settle its liabilities other than those resulting from the supervisory frameworks within which Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions operate.

Transactions with related parties are conducted on an arm’s length basis….


Against this backdrop [global COVID-19 pandemic] Indue delivered a before tax profit of $3.127 million, a solid result given the prevailing headwinds…..


Events Subsequent to Balance Date

At the date of approving these financial statements, the Directors are of the view the effects of COVID-19 do not change the significant estimates, judgements and assumptions in the preparation of the financial statement…..


Likely Developments

Information on likely developments in the operations of the Company and the expected results of operations have not been included in this annual financial report because the Directors believe it would be likely to result in unreasonable prejudice to the Company. [NOTE: Likely relying on s299A(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 in order to conceal expected future progression of the federal government cashless debit card scheme]

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2019-2020]


2020-21


It is pleasing to report a lift in profit, despite the ongoing influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. ….


A more positive outlook has contributed to our improved performance, with a Profit Before Tax (PBT) result of $3.6 million, an increase of 24% over the previous year….


An operating profit after tax of $2.583 million (2020: $2.091 million) was achieved this year….


Indue’s capital position remains sound. Our Tier 1 ratio rose to 15.5% at the end of FY21, an increase of 35 basis points on last year.


In relation to dividends, we have a good record of rewarding owners for providing investment capital. With an improved economic outlook and stronger financial performance, we are pleased to be able to declare a fully franked dividend of $7.50 per share for FY22….


After nearly 50 years, our partnership with Westpac is coming to an end in 2022. We are moving to become a Tier 1 provider for Direct Entry services, which is well-aligned to our strategy. We look forward to continuing to support our clients in this important payment channel.


Our core focus continues to be delivering sustainable value for our clients and shareholders….


We will continue to support our clients, so they can focus on growing their businesses – while we navigate the changed world of payments on their behalf….


The constitution of the Company provides for two Groups of Directors, both elected in accordance with the constitution. Group One Directors, referred to as ‘Industry Directors’, must be officers, employees or associates of a member. Group Two Directors, referred to as ‘Independent Directors’ must not be officers, employees or associates of a member. Industry Directors are not remunerated by the Company. Independent Directors are remunerated by the Company, with shareholders determining the maximum annual aggregate amount of remuneration that may be provided to them ….


The following persons were Directors of Indue Ltd during the financial year:

Chair – Non executive [Independent]

F[rank] Gullone (appointed 28 August 2020)

R Burns (resigned 27 November 2020)

Non executive Directors [Independent]

S Collier (resigned 27 November 2020)

M[ichael Francis] Currie

P[eter Robert] Townsend

P[eter Hooper] Wright

A[nthony] De Fazio

S[usan] Rix (appointed 8 January 2021) [my yellow highlighting]

A Cheadle (appointed 8 January 2021, resigned 27 May 2021)....


The Company’s Authorised Share Capital is $17.265 million. All issued shares [total of 126,182] are fully paid ….


In August 2021 Indue entered into a share buyback arrangement for a small number of issued shares….


Total Contributed Equity, Reserves, Retained Earnings, Balance at 30 June 2021 = $58,650,000 ” …..


Government grants

Government grants, including JobKeeper, are recognised when there is a reasonable assurance that the Company will comply with the conditions attached to the grant, and the grant will be received.

The Company became eligible for JobKeeper in June 2020 after meeting the specific obligations, and remained eligible until September 2020. All expected grant payments were received by October 2020…...

[Indue Limited, Annual Report 2020-2021, excerpts]


The Guardian, 4 November 2021:


*The company contracted by the federal government to run the controversial cashless debit card claimed $2m in jobkeeper payments before increasing its revenues during the pandemic.


Payments firm Indue, which was handed a $26m, two-year extension to its contract to keep running the scheme late last year, received about $2.1m in jobkeeper wage subsidies in total. That comprised $632,700 in June 2020 and $1.49m between July and September 2020, according to its annual report.


The company’s revenue increased in 2019-20 and 2020-21, leading to profit of $2.1m and $2.5m, the report shows.


Under the jobkeeper program, businesses were required to estimate whether their turnover would decrease by 30-50% when compared to the previous year, depending on their size. There is no suggestion Indue did not qualify for the payments under the rules of the scheme.


Controversially, the government elected not to include a clawback provision to recoup money from those companies that outperformed expectations…..


https://www.scribd.com/document/538531113/INDUE-LIMITED-Current-Historical-Company-Extract