The ‘unacceptable failure’ that left ANZ red-faced
On the fifth anniversary of the banking royal commission, Shayne Elliott mused on the eviscerating findings of the inquiry and the lessons ANZ had learnt.
The public flogging, Elliott wrote on LinkedIn in February, forced Australia’s financial services to examine in excruciating detail where they fell short on community expectations and laid a pathway to earning back trust and respect.
“One of the things I would like ANZ to be known for is doing the right thing,” the chief executive of ANZ wrote. “I can’t tell each of our 40,000 people what to decide, but what I can do is give them a sense of purpose, values and structure. Our purpose is to shape a world where people and communities thrive – it guides our choices on who we bank, how we bank those customers and how we behave towards them and each other.”
But while Elliott was publicly reflecting on how far the bank had come since the dying days of the royal commission, the corporate regulator had quietly launched an investigation into ANZ’s markets division over allegations it did the wrong thing and broke the law.
Traders in the markets division were alleged to have manipulated the bond rate, forcing up the federal government’s cost during a $14 billion debt sale, as well as inflating their bond trading figures to portray themselves as more experienced than they actually were.
ANZ reported the latter to the Australian Office of Financial Management in August last year, blamed processes, acknowledged it as an “unacceptable failure”, and launched an audit to review the bank’s governance processes.
On the allegations ANZ traders manipulated data, in a statement to the ASX last month, Elliott said the bank had conducted its own preliminary analysis, and while noting it did not have the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s full powers, it did not find evidence of market manipulation.
He also revealed ANZ had launched an investigation into workplace culture in the Sydney dealers’ room, and suspended, terminated and issued formal warnings to several staff.
“Where we find any evidence of wrongdoing, those involved will be held accountable and action will be taken,” Elliott said. “The board will also lead a process to ensure consequences will be applied to senior executives, both past and present, including myself, where appropriate”, largely in reference to remuneration and bonuses.
It was a huge blow to a bank whose shares have lagged its rivals by between 8 and 18 per cent this year, as interest-rate expectations and the New Zealand economic outlook weighed heavily on its share value.
Investors are now assessing the financial implications of the probes.
If ASIC gathers enough evidence and successfully litigates in court, which could be years away – if it ever gets there – ANZ faces a maximum penalty of $780 million, a modest sum relative to the $7.4 billion profit it posted last year.
The real hit to ANZ will come from the potential revenue it will be forced to forego from governments reluctant to deal with the bank while an investigation is conducted. ANZ has reportedly already missed out on three potential government contracts over the scandal.
“Certainly, the government is going to think twice about using ANZ,” said Mark Humphery-Jenner, a finance academic from the University of New South Wales.
“If the allegations are proven, this would have cost the taxpayer money because the taxpayer is going to be paying a higher interest on debt. And if proven, there’s an element of dishonesty … by making themselves look more experienced than they actually were.”
Brian Johnson, a long-serving banking analyst at MST Financial, has likened the hot water ANZ finds itself in to the scandal that engulfed PwC after revelations the consulting giant misused confidential government information to help corporate clients avoid paying tax.
Since that erupted about 18 months ago, PwC has slashed hundreds of jobs, sold off its lucrative government consulting practice to private equity firm Allegro Funds for $1, and been investigated by federal police and politicians.
“Either [the ANZ markets unit] was very, very fortunate on the day the bond was priced, or the fact it happened is telling you they didn’t have the processes in place,” Johnson said.
“The problem is that when you’ve got people incentivised to generate a profit, perhaps it becomes acceptable to step outside of the normal rules, and that’s what ASIC’s investigating.”
Elliott last month played down ASIC’s investigation, describing it as a routine “please explain” notice from the corporate regulator. Days later, ASIC chairman Joe Longo shot down that suggestion, noting an investigation “by definition [means] we suspect a contravention of the law”.
The corporate regulator has assigned some of its most senior investigators to uncover what happened at ANZ, indicating how serious it is viewing the allegations. But it’s too early to tell what this means for the bank, or even the future of Elliott, who was widely expected to resign later this year after an eight-year tenure as chief executive.
“Shayne Elliott has been in the role for quite some time, and he was close to moving on anyway, so sometimes things like this bring that forward,” said Omkar Joshi, founder and chief investment officer of Opal Capital Management.
“If it escalates from here, you can make the case you want someone from the outside, a clean slate to look to fix things, but you have a look at the history at Westpac … and Commbank … they had internal candidates [after their chief executives resigned].”
Analysts and investors are keenly watching, especially as the New Zealand regulator, Financial Markets Authority, investigates its own allegations of market manipulation over a $NZ2.5 billion inflation-linked government bond issued two years ago.
The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.