Just on the court case, I know it is a bit contrarian, but such things can be positive things.
For instance, my understanding, (though haven't read absolutely everything) is that SVR believes it did no wrong. So why would they settle?
If it was an ordinary civil claim, they would probably settle. But it is ASIC: a little like a public ruling from the ATO.
There is 0% chance that SVR, as a legal entity, intends to write loans, which are not paid back. So it just comes down to proper process, controls and importantly, where the goal posts are (something ASIC is in the business of).
In this particular instance, SVR wants to win the case as it has already expended millions of lawyers...etc. SVR has also probably already spent millions on better processes, at the least, to be able to demonstrate their process publicly, for every relevant case. For instance, I recall them saying they have put in place 'an extra layer' internally; a person who looks at things from a few more angles (I assume so that SVR can always substantiate if they need to).
A few more weeks now until half report.
Expand
(20min delay)