ANZ accelerates the examination of mortgage applications

One would think that the ANZ boss would see the improvised explosive devices hidden. But no.

You would really think that the leaders of major Australian financial institutions would see hidden improvised explosive devices hidden in the royal commission landscape or the length of the rope provided by the commission for their own hanging. But no.

ANZ's boss, Shayne Elliott, is the latest bank boss to embark on the now familiar trap of defending his bank's commendable values.

We heard NAB chief Andrew Thorburn boast about the EPIC values ​​of his bank: Empathy, Perform, Imagine, Connect. How ridiculous that was when NAB President and CEO Ken Henry had completed his testimony before the commission earlier this week.

The acronym for ANZ was just as silly. ICARE – or integrity, collaboration, responsibility, respect, excellence.

Of course it matters. But what about? And how could an organization that follows these principles be involved in such a range of mistakes?

That's where the badistant lawyer, Rowena Orr, QC, was there to find out.

As we have heard all too often during these hearings, misconduct has a long gestation period, a much longer period than that of the executive director or president.

According to Elliott, the problems are 10 years old, but their causes are more distant. (Elliott must have studied Thorburn's royal commission transcript and wanted to be trapped in the unconscious drift.)

This explanation has the added benefit of blaming the bosses that preceded it.

CBA CEO Matt Comyn, who is relatively new in his position, played this card extensively during his testimony, as did his President, Catherine Livingstone.

Like most of the witnesses who sat before him, Elliott admitted that the bank had become too income-oriented, that it was paying too little attention to clients and that it was favoring performance over time. short term in relation to long-term objectives. Specifically, Elliott acknowledged the existence of poorly calibrated compensation packages, a complex business with decentralized management and an insufficient investment in correcting errors – which we heard later , according to ANZ, considered a distraction.

"Clearly not acceptable"

After confessing his confession, Orr immediately questioned Elliott about how long the bank had taken to remedy the situation of his clients.

She reminded him that before remedying the situation, the bank had trouble identifying the breaches – or informing the regulator.

It took more than four years for the bank to identify the offenses.

There was a lack of diligence within the bank and the identification was too slow, had to admit.

"This is clearly not acceptable, and it is not correct," he said.

And how do you get this right? Orr wanted to know. Elliott stated that he did not get a perfect answer and that he did not think it would be useful to set targets in terms of the time needed to identify incidents that turned out to be significant violations.

ANZ customers can have a different point of view.

On this question, ANZ was the worst of the pack, but Elliott did not understand why to compare his case to that of his bank. He rather admitted that it was too high. [or rather long]".

No Royal Commission witness experience is complete without a careful examination of particular cases that illustrate how inappropriate the behavior was and how late, complicated or incompetent the rehabilitation was.

For example, no less than five different processing errors came into play when a large number of ANZ clients received an appropriate (higher) home loan rate. Elliott did not know how many customers were affected, but there were up to 2 million accounts involved.

Indeed, Elliott had received many details that he could not answer. But in his defense, Elliott hastened to admit that the bank's actions had been unacceptable.

He clearly felt on a more comfortable ground when Orr was briefly away from these embarrbading case studies and turned to the ANZ clearance team. The relief was short-lived. Orr quickly reminded Elliott that several time delays that the ANZ had already promised the commission had not been met. So much for the efficiency of this team.

Pipe dream, or at least a work of progress (early)

If only Orr had led with the only subject on which Elliott could legitimately sing. ANZ proposed to impose playing limits on credit cards. Unfortunately, this was settled quickly before Elliott was again in the hot seat, explaining why branches were cut in remote areas and regions.

After hours in the box, Elliott's introductory remarks about his aspirations for the bank's commitment to "excellence" looked more like a dream or at least a work of (early) progress.

Elliott wants "ANZ" to be the best bank for those who wish to buy and own a home in Australia and New Zealand. "

"The best bank for people looking to start, manage and grow a small business in Australia and New Zealand.

"The best bank for these companies – and these are usually larger companies – are dependent on trade and capital flows in our region."

Great goals indeed. But the poor performance of the other three major Australian banks could help.