The regulator’s frustration with the pace of remediation and the lack of priority that the big four banks, AMP and Macquarie, had given the issue was palpable. It fired a warning across the industry’s bow that there was no more time to argue with the umpire. ASIC told the industry members to undertake these reviews as early as 2015 and it's running out of patience with their excuses. The regulator’s ongoing supervision of the review programs undertaken by these financial institutions has shown that most of them are yet to complete further reviews beyond those already identified and reported to ASIC. It is clear that ASIC will be availing itself of newly-minted powers from the government which could speed up compensation in the future.

Loading During the banking royal commission the evidence from financial institutions made much of the difficulty in finding customers that had been short-changed on advice and ascertaining how much they were owed. But ASIC takes the view that the causes for the delays go deeper than just the complexity of the task or the six to 10-year vintage of customer abuses. A lack of proper record-keeping is clearly a problem for some institutions, particularly where financial advisers had moved on. While it is tempting to feel some sympathy for the difficulty they have in burrowing down rabbit holes to find old records, the reality is that the correct systems should have been in place. If the institutions selling these products were unable to keep records then they shouldn’t have been in the business.

The royal commission hearings revealed that some institutions were baulking at the size of compensation or being overly legalistic in determining how it should be measured. A few, for example, argued that some degree of service was provided so full refunds were not required - even if it wasn’t the service the customer was paying for. While it would be hazardous to just counts the ticks, it would appear that Macquarie (which has a far smaller business in financial advice) is tracking better than the others. ASIC says the current audit of how these financial institutions had fared demonstrated a "failure by some institutions to propose reasonable customer-centric methodologies to identify and compensate customers despite ASIC’s clear articulation of expectations". ASIC rejected a few of the methodologies by financial institutions such as a requirement for customers to "opt-in" to the review and remediation program.

ASIC's view is that if the agreement requires an annual review, the mere offer of an annual review is not sufficient. Some financial institutions had disagreed. It certainly sounds like stalling. Sadly ASIC has delivered a report card on the six financial institutions set out in alphabetical order rather than best to worst. While it would be hazardous to just count the ticks, it would appear that Macquarie (which has a far smaller business in financial advice) is tracking better than the others. At the other end of the spectrum, the Commonwealth Bank has already been singled out by ASIC for its progress on dealing with the fees-for-no-service.

Last month ASIC banned CBA's financial planning business, CFPL, from charging any fees or taking on new customers after the regulator determined that the bank hadn’t yet properly fixed the weeping sore of fees-for-no-service. AMP seems to get the wooden spoon for timing. "AMP estimates it will complete its review of current and former advisers, and customer remediation arising from that review, in the second half of 2021," the regulator's score card said. Other than Macquarie, each of the five institutions received fails or could do better commentary on various criteria suggesting a different dog had eaten each of their homework.