I think we need to look through the spin of the announcement. They have missed the deadline on 4 items. APRA is in no mood to mess around. They also haven't disclosed this to the market at the time of missing the deadline. Were they hoping for an OK from APRA before disclosing - which they haven't been able to get?
Media will be keen to fill everybody in on what this could mean.
"IOOF’s approach to the OST has been to design a function in a considered manner, with member outcomes central to its design and maintenance." Quite handy to be able to cherrypick the sections of the report they like to inform the market. Backside covering outcomes would be even more central I suspect, with the lawyer fest happening in the sector.
I wonder if there is a nasty lemon hiding in this implementation of a dedicated business function? Is there a hint in the provision of funding mentioned - obviously cost factors are paramount. So is that why they merely chatting about it? They are dragging their feet for some reason I suspect. Maybe they want to get out of the ANZ PI acq?
The independent reviewer isn't really independent - they are IOOF's independent reviewer. There would have been a lot of independent reviewers to choose from. Not implying that anybody would cross any red lines.
Does anybody more savvy about the regulatory goings on have any opinions? Happy to be told I am wrong to perceive big issues over this.
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)