Australia’s corporate watchdog has tightened the screws on Macquarie Bank, imposing a suite of tough new conditions on the institution’s financial‑services licence after uncovering what it calls “multiple and significant compliance failures” across the bank’s futures and over‑the‑counter (OTC) derivatives operations. Under the directions announced late Tuesday, Macquarie must draw up a remediation blueprint, engage an independent expert to sign off on that plan, and then submit to a follow‑up review to verify reforms are working in practice.
Nine Market‑Conduct Breaches in 18 Months
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said its enforcement teams had logged nine distinct market‑conduct breaches at Macquarie over the past year and a half. Seven of those concerned misreporting more than 375,000 OTC derivative trades, while two involved failures in futures dealing—including a high‑profile lapse that allowed suspicious energy‑market orders to flow through Macquarie’s systems despite earlier regulatory warnings. The recurrent nature of the breaches, ASIC commissioner Simone Constant said, revealed “ineffective supervision and weak compliance and control management” entrenched deep within the bank’s trading culture.
Misreporting 375,000 OTC Trades: What Went Wrong
OTC derivatives are bespoke contracts—often swaps, forwards or options—negotiated bilaterally outside exchange rule books. Since 2015, Australian rules have required large banks to report most such trades to licensed repositories so that regulators can monitor systemic risk. ASIC’s probe found Macquarie had mis‑tagged or failed to report hundreds of thousands of OTC transactions, some dating back a decade. Investigators cited patchy data feeds, inconsistent trade identifiers and a breakdown in the hand‑off between front‑office desks and back‑office reporting teams. In some instances, trades that should have been reported within 24 hours sat undisclosed for weeks. Such blind spots hamper watchdogs’ ability to track concentration risks or spot market manipulation early.
Electricity‑Futures Surveillance Failures and Record Fine
The new licence conditions arrive barely seven months after ASIC’s Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP) levied its largest ever penalty—A$4.995 million—against Macquarie for failing to stop clients from placing 11 suspicious “mark‑the‑close” bids in the electricity‑futures market. Those bids, lodged seconds before the session end, nudged settlement prices in the clients’ favour and occurred in spite of prior regulator alerts. The MDP described Macquarie’s response as a “serious market‑gatekeeper failure.” Tuesday’s announcement makes clear that ASIC feels earlier sanctions have not driven lasting change.
Independent Expert to Oversee Remediation
Under the new conditions, Macquarie must table a step‑by‑step remediation roadmap addressing governance, risk and control gaps in both its futures‑dealing desk and trade‑reporting functions. An external consultant—approved by ASIC but paid by the bank—will vet that plan for completeness, then return six months later to test whether promised fixes are operationally effective. ASIC has warned that failure to satisfy the expert could trigger further action, including monetary penalties or, in extreme cases, restrictions on trading permissions. The regulator said the intense oversight is necessary “to give ASIC confidence the remediation will be effective and drive sustainable change.”
Wider Implications for Australia’s Derivatives Market
Market practitioners say the saga underscores how mis‑reporting at a single global dealer can skew the data sets used by both regulators and counterparties to price and mitigate risk. Macquarie is a heavyweight in Australian futures markets and a top‑tier OTC participant, especially in energy and interest‑rate swaps. “If 375,000 trades are mis‑aligned, that distorts aggregate open‑interest statistics and hinders the early‑warning function of trade repositories,” notes Colin Howe, a former exchange surveillance chief turned consultant. The episode also highlights ASIC’s growing focus on gatekeeper obligations: licensed intermediaries must not only police their own trading but also detect and disrupt clients’ attempts to game the market.
READ MORE: Westpac Shares Slide Amid Profit Dip and Uncertain Economic Outlook
Macquarie’s Track Record of Compliance Problems
Tuesday’s measures are not Macquarie’s first run‑in with ASIC. In 2016, the bank faced extra licence conditions after a decade‑long breach of client‑money rules, prompting an overhaul of cash‑management systems. In 2022, ASIC sued Macquarie for failing to monitor third‑party withdrawals from customer accounts, alleging millions had been siphoned undetected. Shareholders have tolerated the periodic bruises, partly because Macquarie’s profit engine has boomed on the back of global infrastructure deals and commodities trading. Yet analysts warn that persistent compliance gaps now pose a reputational drag and could prompt counterparties to demand higher collateral or tighter legal protections.
Industry Reaction and Market Impact
Macquarie’s response on Tuesday was measured: the bank said it “acknowledges ASIC’s concerns” and “is committed to implementing remediation actions.” Traders noted the group’s shares slipped about half a percent in morning trade—modest compared with broader market moves but indicative of investor jitters ahead of Macquarie’s full‑year earnings report, due on May 9. Fund manager Rebecca Bligh at Zurich‑based Vontobel said the new controls will add cost—consultants alone can run to seven figures—but may ultimately strengthen Macquarie’s systems. “The bigger hit is strategic,” Bligh adds. “Regulators worldwide are watching ASIC’s model for intrusive remediation orders. That raises the bar for compliance expectations in every jurisdiction where Macquarie operates.”
A Signal to the Sector: ASIC’s Enforcement Escalates
The action fits a broader ASIC playbook of escalating responses when banks repeat errors. Over the past two years, the watchdog has demanded independent reviewers at major superannuation funds, sued lenders for green‑washing and co‑ordinated cross‑border probes into crypto derivatives. Commissioner Constant hinted the agency will target senior‑manager accountability next. In a January speech she stressed the need for “end‑to‑end responsibility,” warning board directors that recurring lapses would invite personal consequences under Australia’s Banking Executive Accountability Regime. Market lawyers say that signals a pivot from fines toward potential bans or disqualifications.
What Happens Next
Macquarie has three months to submit its remediation blueprint; ASIC will then publish a summary of the independent expert’s initial review. Insiders expect focus on three pressure points: data integrity (ensuring trade‑reporting fields are accurate), surveillance tech (upgrading SMARTS or rival platforms to flag suspicious orders) and culture (clarifying who owns compliance when a lucrative client pushes boundaries). The expert’s follow‑up fieldwork, likely Q1 2026, will test whether new controls have prevented further mis‑reporting and whether staff challenge red‑flag behaviour in real time. If results fall short, ASIC can extend the licence conditions or refer matters for civil penalty proceedings.
Meanwhile, Treasury officials are finalising amendments to the Corporations Act that would triple maximum MDP fines to A$15 million for a single breach—legislation inspired in part by last year’s Macquarie electricity‑futures case. “There is a clear policy arc,” says Dr Nancy Wu, senior research fellow at Melbourne Law School. “Regulators impose conditions; if misconduct continues, Parliament lifts the penalty ceiling. Firms that treat fines as a cost of business will find the calculus changing.”
Bottom Line
For a bank that prides itself on risk pricing, the immediate financial hit from ASIC’s latest intervention may be limited. The long‑term cost, however, lies in rebuilding trust with regulators, clients and counterparties who rely on accurate data and rigorous surveillance to keep markets fair and transparent. Macquarie’s leadership now faces a familiar test: convert compliance pledges into verifiable practice, or risk the next headline reading not of licence conditions but of civil court proceedings.
