ASIC Watch: CFD Sector Faces $40m Refund Bill

Array
(
    [0] => Array
        (
            [0] => ((ANZ))
            [1] => ((MQG))
            [2] => ((DUB))
        )

    [1] => Array
        (
            [0] => ANZ
            [1] => MQG
            [2] => DUB
        )

)

This story features ANZ GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED, and other companies.
For more info SHARE ANALYSIS: ANZ
The company is included in ASX20, ASX50, ASX100, ASX200, ASX300 and ALL-ORDS

This story features regulatory enforcement affecting CFD providers, ANZ Banking Group, Macquarie Group, Dubber Corp, and broader financial services compliance.

ASIC has secured nearly $40m in refunds for over 38,000 retail CFD investors following a sector-wide review exposing systemic Design and Distribution Obligation breaches, while landmark penalties against ANZ Bank and Macquarie signal intensifying enforcement across financial services.

• Over 50% of CFD sector breached product intervention orders with prohibited "margin discounts."
• 68% of retail CFD investors lost money in FY24, totaling $458 million, including $73 million in fees
• ANZ Bank faces record -$250m penalty for widespread misconduct and systemic failures
• Macquarie Securities pays -$35m for systemic short sale reporting failures
• BDO Audit faces civil proceedings over allegedly false Dubber Corporation audit report

By Valery Prihartono

The CFD Reckoning: Compliance Becomes License-Critical

ASIC has opened 2026 with a decisive strike against the high-risk retail derivative sector. Report 828: Risky business: Driving change in CFD issuers’ distribution practices marks a critical juncture for the industry, exposing “widespread weaknesses” in how Contracts for Difference products are distributed to retail investors.

The regulator’s review of 52 licensed CFD issuers between October 2024 and December 2025 has resulted in nearly -$40m in refunds to over 38,000 investors.

For listed providers and the broader retail investment platform sector, the message is unequivocal: compliance is no longer a checkbox exercise but fundamental to capital preservation and license security.

The Retail Loss Reality

The scale of retail losses in CFD trading validates ASIC’s intervention. In the 2024 financial year alone, 68% of retail CFD investors lost money, with total losses exceeding -$458m including -$73m in fees.

This loss rate isn’t an aberration; it reflects the inherent complexity and risk of leveraged derivative products marketed to retail investors, often lacking a sophisticated understanding of margin requirements, funding costs, and leverage dynamics.

The “Margin Discount” Breach

A key finding from ASIC’s review was that over 50% of the sector contravened the regulator’s Product Intervention Order by offering “margin discounts” to retail clients holding opposing long and short positions.

While marketed as a customer benefit, these discounts often resulted in higher funding costs for investors without genuine profit potential from the opposing positions.

The structure effectively eroded capital through fees while creating an illusion of hedged positions.

This widespread breach demonstrates either willful circumvention of regulatory requirements or fundamental misunderstanding of product intervention order implications; neither interpretation inspires investor confidence in sector governance.

Design and Distribution Obligations as Enforcement Lever

ASIC’s focus on Design and Distribution Obligations represents a strategic shift in enforcement approach.

Rather than pursuing individual cases of unsuitable advice, the regulator is using DDO requirements to force systemic changes across entire product categories.

The review’s impact was comprehensive:

Target Market Corrections: 39 issuers were forced to narrow their target markets, excluding consumers for whom CFDs are fundamentally unsuitable based on financial literacy, risk tolerance, or investment objectives.

Onboarding Improvements: 44 issuers had to enhance client onboarding and “knock-out” questionnaires to genuinely assess financial literacy rather than maximize conversion rates. This directly addresses the conflict between growth incentives and consumer protection.

Reporting Remediation: 48 issuers implemented changes to fix over 70m erroneous reports identified during the review, highlighting systemic deficiencies in basic compliance infrastructure.

Investment Implications for Listed Providers

While major listed CFD providers like IG Group, CMC Markets, and Plus500 operate globally with established compliance frameworks, the Australian enforcement action carries material implications:

Permanent Compliance Cost Increase

Listed brokers face permanent increases in compliance operating expenses to manage real-time client outcome monitoring. The days of quarterly or annual reviews are over. DDO obligations require continuous assessment of whether products are reaching appropriate target markets and delivering reasonable outcomes.

This represents structural margin pressure for the retail derivatives segment, potentially making it less attractive relative to institutional or wholesale businesses with lower compliance intensity.

Product Intervention Order Extension Risk

The CFD Product Intervention Order is scheduled to expire on May 23, 2027. However, issuer conduct throughout 2026 will directly determine whether ASIC remakes the order, potentially with more stringent restrictions.

A worst-case scenario would mirror the United States approach, where retail CFD trading is effectively prohibited. While unlikely given Australia’s regulatory philosophy, the possibility creates ongoing uncertainty for business planning and capital allocation.

Listed CFD providers should expect the order to be extended with additional restrictions rather than allowed to lapse. Capital markets should price this as the base case scenario.

Competitive Dynamics Shift

The “Perfect Storm” of compliance requirements –DDO, Product Intervention Orders, and enhanced reporting– creates high barriers to entry.

While this pressures margins for incumbents, it simultaneously protects them from smaller unlisted disruptors unable to sustain the compliance infrastructure required.

Investors should view the compliance burden paradoxically: near-term margin pressure but medium-term competitive moat strengthening as marginal players exit or never enter the market.

Major Institutional Penalties: The “Big Brand” Enforcement

Beyond the CFD sector focus, ASIC has secured landmark penalties against major financial institutions, demonstrating that enforcement intensity extends across the spectrum from retail platforms to systemically important banks.

ANZ Bank: Record -$250 Million Penalty

The Federal Court ordered ANZ Banking Group ((ANZ)) to pay -$250m in combined penalties for widespread misconduct and systemic risk failures. This represents the largest penalty ASIC has ever secured against a single entity.

The violations included:

• Overstating bond trading data to create false impressions of liquidity and market depth

• Failing to properly handle customer hardship notices, leaving vulnerable customers without appropriate assistance during financial stress

• Systemic risk management failures are allowing these issues to persist without detection or correction

The -$250m penalty reflects not just the severity of individual violations but systemic governance deficiencies allowing multiple serious failures to occur simultaneously.

For investors in major banks, this underscores the materiality of operational risk and compliance culture.

Macquarie Securities: -$35m for Reporting Failures

Macquarie Securities ((MQG)) has agreed to pay -$35m for systemic failures in reporting millions of short sales over several years, caused by repeated failures in internal systems and processes.

Unlike one-off errors, the systemic nature of these reporting failures indicates fundamental deficiencies in control frameworks and systems architecture. The fact failures persisted over the years suggests inadequate monitoring and validation of critical regulatory reporting.

For Macquarie Group, while -$35m is material, the reputational implications and regulatory scrutiny intensification carry potentially greater long-term costs through elevated compliance requirements and closer ongoing supervision.

The Integrity Infrastructure: Unlisted Sector Enforcement

ASIC’s enforcement activity extends beyond listed entities to the “plumbing” of the financial system; auditors, liquidators, and other gatekeepers whose failures can trigger systemic consequences.

BDO Audit: Dubber Corporation Litigation

ASIC has commenced civil penalty proceedings against BDO Audit (WA) and director Dean Just, alleging materially false or misleading audit reports for ASX-listed Dubber Corp ((DUB)) between FY20 and FY22.

The case follows the identification of inconsistencies regarding $26.6m in funds purportedly held in trust. When auditors fail to identify or report material misstatements, the consequences cascade through capital markets as investors make decisions based on unreliable financial information.

For ASX-listed companies, this enforcement action reinforces that audit quality matters. While investors typically focus on company management, auditor competence and diligence represent a critical but often overlooked risk factor.

Liquidator Accountability

The Administrative Review Tribunal substituted a registration cancellation for liquidator Richard Ernest Auricht with a five-year suspension for failing to lodge required documents and drawing unauthorized remuneration.

While involving an unlisted individual, this case reinforces high conduct standards expected of those managing corporate collapses.

Liquidators who misappropriate funds or fail basic obligations undermine creditor recoveries and market confidence in insolvency processes.

Why the “Sidelines” Matter for Listed Portfolios

ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court has pledged to deliver “more investigations, more actions, and stronger outcomes” — a commitment clearly being fulfilled across both high-profile institutional cases and lower-profile integrity infrastructure enforcement.

For investors, enforcement actions in unlisted or smaller entities serve as leading indicators of systemic issues:

Contagion Pathways

Misconduct in the unlisted sector –such as the Dubber audit failure– eventually impacts listed company valuations through remediation programs, restatements, and regulatory intervention.

The -$26.6m in potentially missing funds represents direct shareholder value destruction.

When gatekeepers fail (auditors, liquidators, research houses), the consequences ripple through listed markets as investors lose confidence in financial reporting reliability and governance quality.

Compliance as Competitive Moat

The intensifying enforcement environment creates a high cost of regulatory permission to operate. While this pressures margins for compliant incumbents, it simultaneously protects them from new entrants unable to sustain the compliance infrastructure required.

Listed companies with mature compliance frameworks and proactive governance should trade at premiums to peers with reactive or minimal compliance cultures.

The -$250m ANZ penalty and -$40m CFD refund bill demonstrate the cost of compliance failure far exceeds the cost of compliance investment.

Governance Quality Signals

Investors should favor institutions demonstrating proactive compliance postures:

• Self-identifying and remediating issues before regulatory intervention

• Investing in systems and controls ahead of regulatory requirements

• Clear board oversight of compliance and operational risk

• Transparent disclosure when issues are identified

Companies waiting for ASIC reviews to identify deficiencies face both higher remediation costs (due to compressed timelines) and reputational damage from being enforcement targets rather than compliance leaders.

Investment Strategy: Navigating the Enforcement Cycle

The current enforcement intensity creates clear differentiation opportunities:

Favor Compliance Leaders

Companies with demonstrated track records of proactive compliance and operational excellence will increasingly trade at premiums.

In the current environment, the absence of regulatory enforcement actions represents a material competitive advantage.

Look for:

• Long tenures for Chief Risk Officers and compliance executives (indicates stability)

• Increasing compliance spending ahead of regulatory requirements

• Voluntary adoption of higher standards than mandated minimums

• Clear board-level oversight of operational and compliance risk

Discount Reactive Remediators

Companies appearing in ASIC enforcement actions face multiple headwinds:

• Direct financial costs (penalties, refunds, legal expenses)

• Elevated ongoing supervision and compliance requirements

• Reputational damage affecting customer acquisition and retention

• Management distraction from strategic priorities to remediation

Even when penalties are paid and issues ostensibly resolved, regulatory relationships remain strained and supervision intensified.

Apply structural discounts to recently penalized entities.

Monitor Sector-Wide Reviews

ASIC’s approach of conducting sector-wide reviews (like the CFD examination) creates foreseeable enforcement waves.

When the regulator announces a thematic review, position defensively in affected sectors before findings and enforcement actions materialize.

Current areas of elevated scrutiny include:

• Private credit practices and liquidity management

• Unlisted asset valuations in superannuation

• Consumer pricing complexity and transparency

• AI governance and algorithmic bias

• Greenwashing in ESG product marketing

Looking Ahead: 2026 Enforcement Priorities

The CFD enforcement action, major institutional penalties, and integrity infrastructure cases collectively demonstrate ASIC’s stated priorities, translating into concrete actions with material financial consequences.

For the remainder of 2026, investors should expect:

Continued DDO Enforcement: Design and Distribution Obligations provide powerful leverage for systemic product governance improvements. Expect additional sector reviews targeting complex products marketed to retail investors.

Institutional Accountability: The -$250m ANZ penalty sets a new benchmark. Major institutions can no longer assume size protects from material enforcement actions.

Gatekeepers in Focus: Actions against BDO Audit and liquidators signal heightened expectations for the integrity infrastructure supporting capital markets. Research houses, administrators, and trustees should expect elevated scrutiny.

Technology and AI Governance: While not yet visible in major enforcement actions, the groundwork laid in 2025 enforcement priorities around AI governance will begin materializing in 2026 investigations and actions.

Conclusion: Compliance Quality as Investment Filter

The enforcement landscape heading into 2026 provides a clear framework for evaluating financial services investments: compliance quality and governance maturity are transitioning from background factors to primary valuation drivers.

The -$40m CFD refund, -$250m ANZ penalty, and BDO audit litigation demonstrate that regulatory risk carries material financial consequences across the spectrum from retail platforms to major institutions to integrity infrastructure.

For investors, the strategic implications are clear:

• Premium valuations for compliance leaders demonstrating proactive governance

• Structural discounts for enforcement targets facing penalties and elevated supervision

• Sector-wide reviews create foreseeable headwinds enabling defensive positioning

• Unlisted sector enforcement provides early warning signals of systemic issues

The ASIC Watch series will continue monitoring both headline institutional enforcement and “sideline” integrity infrastructure cases, as both categories provide essential insights for navigating the evolving regulatory landscape and protecting portfolio value in an intensifying enforcement environment.

Find out why FNArena subscribers like the service so much: “Your Feedback (Thank You)” – Warning this story contains unashamedly positive feedback on the service provided.

FNArena is proud about its track record and past achievements: Ten Years On

Click to view our Glossary of Financial Terms