Happy World Consumer Rights 2010.

It gets slightly overshadowed here by another big day in the middle of March, but in case you don't know today, Monday March 15th 2010 is World Consumer Rights Day. You might wonder why this date, well it all stems from a speech by President John F. Kennedy to the Congress on consumer rights on March 15th 1962.

This year the theme is "Our Money, Our Rights" How the global consumer movement is fighting for fair financial services. The theme is timely here in Ireland. We have seen the devastation caused by a banking and financial system out of control. The real victims are the citizens and taxpayers, who had to bail out a system with their taxes and now are paying on the double with increased interest rate charges, increased fees and commissions and less competition. Even leaving aside the near collapse of the system, we need consumer protection and regulation to protect ordinary consumers from the everyday hazards of engaging with financial institutions. I am sure some will accuse me of being the proponent of a "nanny state".

Well I would argue for stronger consumer protection in the area of financial services on two key points. Firstly financial products are what the academics call "credence products" essentially it is hard for the consumer to evaluate the product and their value will only become know over time. The advantage lies with the financial service provider, in most cases consumers are hoping they are acting in their best interests. Unless there are laws and rules there forcing the seller not to take advantage, they will, as we know only too well. Secondly, when things go wrong it can have a devastating effect on the consumer. Bad advice can lead a consumer to take out a loan they can't repay, investing their life's savings in a bad investment, etc, etc. The impact can be severe and significant.

However there is hope that we can rebuild not only a better and stronger banking system, but also a fairer one. Sometimes when you read the reports coming from banks or the financial press, you would get the impression that the banking system solely operates to meet the needs of executives, shareholders and large investors. However the banking system should be there too to meet the needs of ordinary consumers and small businesses.

I met Matthew Elderfield last Monday, when he came and spoke at the Consumer Panel meeting. I was impressed and hopeful for the future. He laid out a very clear, yet ambitious programme, along the lines of the speech he delivered last Thursday. He made some important points, including the fact that consumer protection would remain at the heart of his work and that the new focus on consumer protection was some how to blame for the failure of prudential supervision. I also liked the fact that he is committed to a review of the Consumer Protection Code and to taking a much tougher line on enforcement. However it is a challenging agenda and there will be strong resistance from the vested and well connected interests.




The man responsible for March 15th, great orator, but just wished he hadn't picked St. Patricks Week!



The reform agenda is massive, on the prudential supervision side alone, a lot of work needs to be done. On the consumer protection side, the review of the Consumer Protection Code is long overdue, the gaps and deficiencies in that need to be addressed and then the code needs to promoted among the public. I have been calling for this since it was originally launched in 2007, but for some reason the Financial Regulator has been reluctant to do this. Other areas of concern are diminishing competition, are we sacrificing competition at the altar of rebuilding the balance sheets of banks. We need to see a crackdown on overcharging and mis-selling. Every few weeks there is another overcharging scandal and the response by the financial institutions and the regulator to date has been slow. We also see the number of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman grow, much of it driven by mis-selling.


We are now dealing with the crisis in all types of debt, however we also need to look at how we can avoid such an orgy of credit being doled out by banks in a feckless and reckless manner in future. One measure would be to make irresponsible lending a crime, essentially financial institutions would be held accountable for giving loans and credit for which were hard to justify on the basis of the income of the recipient. The other area is the lack of independent advice driven by hidden commissions and fees to staff and intermediaries. While I accept the many consumers would be reluctant to pay for financial advice, at the very least they should know if and how much commission a bank employee, broker and intermediary is getting from a particular product or institution. And unlike many other European countries, we don't have provision here for a basic bank account that would allow consumers to have access to banking services without the hefty fees and charges. And I could go on and on....but I am still hopeful we can not only build a stronger and better banking system, but a fairer one as well.

Going Dutch?

Here we go again. Despite talk of strong regulation and effective enforcement, last week saw the same old softly softly approach to regulation that got us into the current sorry mess. Davy Stockbrokers were found to have breached rules governing the sale of perpetual bonds to credit unions. The Irish Stock Exchange issued a carefully worded statement, which confirmed that Davys had breached stock market rules, but there was no mention of resignations or fines. This deal has been a disaster for the credit unions, it is estimated that they have lost about 100m euro. Davys have only offered 35m in compensation, so ultimately it will be the credit unions members who will suffer with higher loan repayments charges and reduced or no dividends on their shares to meet the massive losses.

These are the same Davys stockbrokers who in league with two other stockbroking firms called for a cut to social welfare. I would say that senior figures in Government must have been fuming because whatever hope there was of a rate cut before the stockbrokers intervened, there was no hope after this, as the credibility of these people is so low. They have projected deflation of 3% this year, so they say social welfare should be cut by 3%. I wouldn't put too much faith into their projections since they have been wrong so many times. I think Fintan O'Toole summed it up perfectly.


Beware the sweet talking Stockbrokers!!!

There has been a lot of talk about the need for radical reform of financial services regulation. A lot of the focus has been on the model. We have heard of the Canadian model of regulation and now the Dutch model is being mentioned. Yes we can learn from other countries, but focusing on models completely misses the main point. The key problem in Ireland was not the model of regulation, but the culture. The financial regulator was not willing to take strong decisive action against reckless and feckless behaviour by banks and bankers. They issued warnings about 100% mortgages, but did nothing to stop them being issued. They also had powers which it would appear they were reluctant to use. The light touch approach was more like the soft touch approach.

I met an official from the Australian regulator a few years ago. He told me how in Australia the regulator there regularly takes CEOs and senior officials to court for breaking the law and rules. When I spoke with him in 2006, they had jailed 17 people in the Financial Services sector. In doing so they sent a very strong message that they wouldn't tolerate any behaviour which puts consumer, the economy and their overall reputation at risk.

The Government does appear to be serious about a radical reform of financial services legislation. I am just concerned that they rushing into changes for the sake of change that may create more problems that they will solve. For example, I am worried about the proposal to separate the consumer protection function out from the new Central Banking Commission. They plan to create a Financial Services Consumer Agency by merging the existing consumer directorate of the Financial Regulator and the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman. In my view prudential supervision and consumer protection are intertwined and having two agencies will just confuse the consumer and industry.

Apart from the structure, we need to recruit people of international standing with no connections with the industry here, who will take no prisoners and can withstand the financial lobby and act in the public and consumers interest. And while the focus has rightly been on the banks, I think it is also high time we had a shakeup of how the stockbroking companies are regulated.

Sharing the pain equally? Fat chance!

Blogging had to take a back seat these last few weeks. I represent NYCI at the social partnership talks and the negotiations on a plan to address the perilous state of our public finances were quite intense up until last Tuesday. The rather snappily titled (not) document "Draft Framework for a Pact for Stabilisation, Social Solidarity and Economic Renewal" was concentrating all our minds. The public perception may be that the talks collapsed completely, however while the Government and the Trade Unions failed to agree on the issue of the pensions levy, this document has been agreed and will be important in the coming months and years.

Some of the discussions at the talks were interesting, people expressing anger at how the bankers, builders, stockbrokers etc who got us into this mess were getting away Scot free. There is an expectation at the few dozen people who contributed greatly to the rapid descent in our economy must pay the price. People talked about a criminal assets bureau for the financial sector. One story was recounted about how Sean Fitzpatrick was asked to leave a pub, because the owner didn't want his sort around the place. I am not surprised, people are losing their jobs, their homes, dreams and sanity and these guys get millions in payoffs and can retire to the golf course. Indeed it was galling to read Rossa White over in the very smug Davy's stockbrokers lecturing us on how to deal with the crisis, when he and his kind have talked up the housing market and contributed so much to our current problems. And as for their analysis, they can keep it, they have been so wrong so often, they have the credibility of used car salesmen. As recently as March 2006, the so called "analysts" were telling us the boom would last for another 15 years.


Exclusive recording of the Cabinet meeting!

I see the Times in London came up with a list of the 10 people most responsible for the credit crunch. Would be interesting to do a similar exercise here on the ten people responsible for the near collapse of the banking system. Sean Fitzpatrick and Pat Neary may be obvious choices, but they are not solely to blame, there are many people still holding powerful positions in this state who have a lot to answer for as well.

There was an interesting story in the Sunday Tribune last week that didn't get much coverage. It dealt with contracts for difference (CFD) and how they played such a crucial role in the collapse of Anglo Irish and the reputational damage to our financial service sector here. It is alleged that through CFDs Sean Quinn and his family built up a huge stake, almost 25% in Anglo Irish Bank, unknown to many investors. Slowly though international investors got wind of what was happening and confidence in the bank and shares began to collapse. As the article states here, both the Financial Regulator and Irish Stock Exchange come out badly from this fiasco. But will there be any real change so that the lessons learned cannot be repeated?

There is a really interesting section in the article on how a 1% tax could have prevented the problems at Anglo Irish, but how the powerful Dublin stockbrokers scuppered that;

"It could have been different. In March 2006, the Revenue Commissioners, responding to a query about a tax treatment from a Dublin broker issued guidance that tax-free CFDs should be taxed at the 1% that applied to traditional share purchases. All hell broke lose. "It was like a tsunami had hit," recalls a tax expert with close knowledge of what happened at the time. "The brokers kicked up a storm," he said.The storm confirmed the importance of the CFD trades to the profits of the main Dublin stockbrokers, despite the fact that the Irish stock exchange was being dangerously speculated on. Within days, the then finance minister, Brian Cowen, bowed to pressure and pledged to amend the Finance Bill to maintain the tax-free status of CFD trading. The 1% stamp duty levy would continue to be levied only on traditional purchases of shares"

I am sure the files on the correspondence between the main stockbrokers and the Department of Finance would make for interesting reading. But will we see radical change at the Financial Regulator and will the Irish Stock Exchange investigate what went on here to avoid a repeat, which has done so much damage to our financial services sector and has contributed greatly to our economic and public finance woes? I am also concerned at the lack of apparent urgency or sense we need a radical overhaul of the financial services regulatory system. In the Dáil this week the Minister said this in a response to a question on reform;

Financial Services Regulation.
"Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Finance the measures and actions he will take to examine the reasons behind the regulatory failure in the financial services sector here to determine the changes that are required; if he will give a commitment to engage a broad range of stakeholders, such as academics, consumer representatives and social partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Any change to the regulatory framework in Ireland must have regard to EU and international developments. In relation to the EU, there are a number of proposals being developed for adoption this year, including improvements to the Capital Requirements Directive to further strengthen the existing banking prudential framework. Furthermore, the role and mandates of national regulators has been the subject of in-depth consideration by the Ecofin Council. Common reporting standards for financial institutions will enable greater EU wide consistency in supervision. An initial report on this matter is due to be submitted to the Spring European Council and any reform of our Financial Regulator’s structures will be consistent with EU developments. Arising from recent events, there are a number of reviews underway within the Financial Regulator with a view to identifying any shortcomings in the Financial Regulator’s strategic regulatory approach, its structures and its capacity to respond. I await with interest the outcomes of these reviews and will be working with the Regulatory Authority to bring about improvements in our system of financial regulation. Stakeholders will have an involvement in this process through the independent statutory Consultative Panels which will be making an important input to the review process. I will bring proposals to Government if, arising from these reviews, I consider that a change in legislation is required. As the Deputy will also appreciate, under the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Scheme, the oversight of the banks concerned has already been greatly intensified.

This response is a bit alarming, as if nothing much has happened and some tweaking may be required! For my sins I have been re-appointed to the Financial Regulator's Consumer Consultative Panel. I am proud of the work the last panel did on the Consumer Protection Code, which was an advance for consumers. My view is that the Financial Regulator failed not because it did not have the powers to act, but because it was too timid and unwilling to act against the big players, something which I stated publicly in December 2007. The financial services sector in Dublin was a small cosy club, where the top bankers, stockbrokers, audit firms, government officials and central bank regulators were and those still standing are still very chummy. No one will rock the boat!

I would hope that the Consumer Panel will have some input and influence on reforms, but what we really need is a broader public debate and discussion about the role of banks and the financial services sector. We need the sector to return to basic banking and to serve the needs of the economy and our society and not be the slave of the equity analysts! On top of trying to protect consumers rights in the areas of mortgage repossession and attempts by banks to pass on their mistakes in higher charges and fees, I will be following up on some of the issues raised here and looking in particular at the how we can make the system work for consumers and citizens.

Consumers must not be short changed!

All I can say is wow...what an amazing week. Little did I know when I attended a meeting with Minister Brian Lenihan on Monday afternoon at 5pm about the Budget about what was going on behind the scenes and the astonishing announcement made early on Tuesday morning.

Most people agree that this was a bold move that appears to have restored some sense of stability in the Irish Banking system in the short term. However none of us know what the impact will be on the banking sector, the economy and most importantly from my perspective on the consumer. A lot has been written about it and of course we all acknowledge that the global credit crunch played a role. But the Government, regulators and banks have to face up to the reality that much of the problem was home grown as well. The Irish banks shovelled out huge loans to developers and builders in the past 5 years and it was the concerns of other banks about the exposure here that led to the crisis on Monday. Morgan Kelly from UCD had a very good article about this in the Irish Times on Thursday. With Charlie Weston in the Independent leading with a story telling us the banks could be owed €112bn by developers.

Despite the fact that not a cent has been paid by the state because of the guarantee, it is already or very soon going to cost the taxpayer and consumer. As the latest exchequer returns show the Government will have to borrow billions to balance the books, with the guarantee the cost of this credit will shoot up. The other suggestion coming from sections of the financial services sector is that charges and fees will have to increase. This would be totally unacceptable. It was the taxpayers who threw the banks a lifeline in their hour of need, not the shareholders or investors, so is our reward to be higher charges and fees, while those who created this mess, the fat cats at the top get off scot free?


No George Baileys here!!

The Government needs to do 3 things to protect consumers as a result of their decision to guarantee and bail out the banks. Firstly once the dust has settled they must conduct an independent investigation into why this emergency bailout was necessary. Is the current regulatory regime appropriate? Does the Central Bank and Financial Regulator have the necessary powers and did they act appropriately?

Secondly the Government must legislate or regulate to ensure there is no attempt to pass on the cost of this in the form of increased bank charges and fees. It would be all to easy for the banks to pass on the costs of this to the consumer, as we have seen with the airlines when the price of oil went up. Therefore any bank which signs up to the gaurantee scheme would forfeit the right to increase these costs. This can be easily done as all charge and fee increases are already regulated by section 149 of the consumer credit act.

Thirdly the Government must legislate to put the key provisions of the Consumer Protection Code on a statutory footing. The days of "principles based" and light handed regulation are over. We need strong regulatory action to protect consumers, who do not get bail outs or guarantees when they run into financial difficulties.

If the Government fail in this regard, it will be the taxpayers and consumers whi will feel short changed in this whole sorry saga.