Well HT1....if we can believe reports from the Fin Review (quoting e.g.)
" the banking and superannuation regulator's submission to the banking royal commission in August shows it was Mr Kelaher's "indifferent" attitude that caused the litigation-timid regulator to jolt into action after 10 years of not taking anyone to court"
So why, if APRA was sure of it's wicket, why didn't it move incisively against the instos' captains and collaborators back in 2015 rather than adopt a strategy that has bowled over the instos and innocent investors?
It's obvious that innocent investors (e.g. retirees) would be hurt by the approach taken, and more so if Mr Shorten gets his way on franking credits etc.
So, who is on the side that will benefit from this sticky wicket ? I'd like to know.
Not financial advice: please do your own DD
IFL Price at posting:
$5.07 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)