Damage control !

The threat of a Royal Commission has sent the management of the Commonwealth Bank into a charm offensive to try and mitigate the damage done to it's reputation.   Somehow it allowed corrupt financial advisers to steer customers into investments that were good for the bank's profits - and which funnelled huge bonuses into the pockets of those giving the advice - but delivered loss and financial misery to the customers who trusted them with their retirement savings.

It is a sad story of incentives for recommending dubious investment schemes to the very people in face to face contact with the bank seeking advice, and their superiors in the bank looking the other way as this practice swelled their budget achievements and brought accolades.   It seems that many of these same people are still with the Commonwealth bank - and some have been promoted and now serve at a much higher level.

The bank has so far been selective in damage control.  The " squeaky wheel " syndrome applies.   Those that piece together the records to make a compelling case to take to court are quietly reimbursed for part of their losses - in exchange for the promise of no further action.

The pressure for a Royal Commission to probe the whole sordid affair changed all that, but critics complain that it still avoids the action necessary to bring it - kicking and screaming - into full public view.   This new policy of reimbursement stays completely under the bank's control - and all outcomes are at the bank's discretion.

For a start, a review of the investments made will only be conducted where there is a request from an aggrieved customer.    This will avoid a Royal Commission investigation of the entire spectrum of advice given - and limit the draw down on bank profits.    The amount of reimbursement will be in the hands of an independent committee - but once again the people who sit on that committee will be nominees of the bank - and their " independence " is therefore questionable.

The bank terminated the worst offenders amongst it's staff giving dodgy advice, but details are sketchy on what action was taken to remove the possibility of similar malpractice reappearing in the future.  The bank naturally wants to settle this matter in the shortest possible time - and with the least publicity it can manage. It seems that reimbursement of loss is at last being seen as a reluctant necessity - with the actual blame being swept under the carpet.

Dodging a full and frank investigation of this scandal will not deliver justice.  Many of the victims are now in extreme old age and some may not even be aware that the crash of their investments was other than natural causes.   Many could now be deceased, and their families could be unaware of the financial details of their latter days.  In all fairness, this is a matter that should be carefully and fully sifted through by an independent body quite separate from the bank which profitted from the outcome.

Only such a course of action will fully restore the trust that Australia's biggest bank has wiped the slate clean !