• HOME
  • INVESTMENTS
    • Equities >
      • Australia All Cap
      • Australia Small Cap Income
      • Global Mobility
      • Global High Conviction
    • Property >
      • Listed Property
      • TAMIM Property
    • Income >
      • Credit
  • INSIGHTS
    • Insights
    • Weekly Reading Lists
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT
Tamim Asset Management
  • HOME
  • INVESTMENTS
    • Equities >
      • Australia All Cap
      • Australia Small Cap Income
      • Global Mobility
      • Global High Conviction
    • Property >
      • Listed Property
      • TAMIM Property
    • Income >
      • Credit
  • INSIGHTS
    • Insights
    • Weekly Reading Lists
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT

Market Insights

Royal Commission into Banks

7/12/2017

5 Comments

 
This week Robert Swift digs into the recently announced Royal Commission.
Today the Australian government announced there would be a Royal Commission established to investigate the banking industry. This was done on receipt, by Treasury, of a letter from ‘the big 4’ requesting such, in order to ‘restore faith in the financial system’.
 
There will be many comments available on this imminently so ours will be short. We will also mostly ignore the apparent ‘wordsmithing’ whereby the request from the big 4 was to “restore faith in the financial system” rather than investigate the big 4 specifically. That is, “the system is good, we just need folks to be educated” rather than “maybe the system isn’t so healthy; please help us fix it”
 
Banks have been unpopular in Australia (and elsewhere) for justifiable and unjustifiable reasons. It is not clear that Australian banks have been less well behaved than banks in other countries. It seems that banks are unpopular when they transgress with retail clients or the smaller end of town? Wells Fargo in the USA for example has had problems with mis-selling and over zealous account openings, and it has become the banking pariah, rather than the large investment banks which facilitated a number of ‘grand schemes’ which dwarf the WFC account opening scandal. Greece’s entry into the Euro for example, was facilitated by a sleight of hand on a gargantuan scale by a global investment bank. This has cost far more than any account opening or financial planning ineptitude for retail customers done by CBA or WFC!

Since they have only been as badly behaved with equivalent cultural ‘problems’ as banks elsewhere why then is there a Royal Commission and what damage will be done?

It is a political gesture for a marginal government to appear to listen to the people. It is another ‘populist’ gesture much as the UK referendum was or even the Trump victory. Folks are pretty unhappy and rightfully so.

To get the banks to request the inquiry reduces the impact of the accusation of a ’U turn’ by the government and is a clever manoeuvre.

However a Royal Commission is NOT the best avenue to deal with the banking system and the problems of culture and poor behaviour at the big 4. Ironically a Royal Commission remit SHOULD be established and focus instead on the idea of breaking the oligopoly of the big 4. Somewhere along the line the Australian mantra of “4 pillars” became only 4 rather than at least 4. The problem of concentrated power lies in the decisions of the Rudd government to let Westpac take over St George, and for CBA to then buy Bank West. Four with a few small competitors became four with two of the more viable competitors subsumed. To have an industry which is price competitive needs competition and of that there is now too little. It is also clear that bank owned platforms with bank owned asset managers and tied planner networks is hardly the stuff of competition and low fees for the retail consumer. It is not all the fault of the Rudd government but they sure were nudged into acquiescing to what the big banks wanted.

A Royal Commission is designed to work when there is one major systemic issue and for which bilateral policy change can be agreed.

Inadequate banking competition and the overly powerful banks control of super fund administration in Australia, would be a valid target for a Royal Commission but it appears that this is not the requested objective.

Consequently we guess that this Commission will just be a sniping exercise where tabloid headlines of ‘scandalous policy and unsavoury behaviour’  will be the norm.

Here are our considerations if the toxic cultural norms, inadequate skills and bad incentives are to be improved:-
  1. The best way to deal with poor behaviour is for the owners of the business, the shareholders, to get engaged before the event. ESG or Environmental, Social, and Governance, issues are all investment considerations, and yet we find that rarely are boards engaged by activist investors to effect change before something happens – at least not yet. Were the warning signs not there at CBA for some time as the Storm Financial scandal broke? Hindsight is a great thing but if ESG is an approach you highlight as part of your process then maybe there should have been more change required after Storm? I think the regulator might have been a little slow here too? People respond to incentives and staff are the same. Consequently shareholders should investigate management incentives and understand better the behaviours they produce. We understand it is difficult. We know some powerful UK based shareholder friends, who owned a decent slug of the Royal Bank of Scotland, and they were constantly telling the Chairman that Fred Goodwin was not a CEO who was building a sustainable and solid business. They got nowhere even though they were right. Engagement can be a thankless task but at least they tried before he blew up the bank and cost shareholders and tax payers a lot of money.
  2. It is all about culture. Make the staff targets revenue based and you will get very different behaviour from imposing a target that is client retention based – for example. This Australian banking ‘problem’ is about behaviour, business culture and the true qualifications of executives to run retail and wealth management businesses. Business culture and the true level of management experience and skill should not be a Royal Commission remit.
  3. Shareholders find it hard to vote with their feet if the company is too powerful and too large in their benchmark. Not owning CBA when it comprises over 10% of your benchmark assigned by the pension consultant is a tough and risky call to make for any fund manager. “Small is beautiful” in that the shareholders can afford to disinvest from a company they believe has a toxic culture and / or is a bad business.  We think that government should use the Royal Commission to investigate breaking up the banks; and that more funds here should invest internationally using a global equity index which acknowledges the plentiful supply of well run banks offshore. This would make Australian banks less influential.
  4. In an age of Fintech it is not clear that reducing the size and scope of the banks would raise the cost of borrowing in the economy – a claim you can be sure the banks will make if it ever is threatened!  In short it may be a good thing to reduce the grip of the banks, but their written request was to “restore faith in the financial system”, not investigate and change the system! 
  5. This will be embarrassing for and potentially emasculate, the financial regulators. Or they could come back “badder and bolder” and heap a whole load more regulation and pointless oversight onto listed companies. We don’t know but as ever more regulations don’t appear to change behaviours. Someone somewhere is always breaking the law. If you make more laws, more laws will be broken. It’s not about the number of laws but the principles and ethics in which the business is immersed; and then how you respond IF you do break a law. Again we don’t see how a Royal Commission can help with ameliorating poor behaviour.

Our response in conclusion? Prepare for a year of revelations and rumours and heightened volatility in Australian banks. Look elsewhere, especially internationally, for diversification.
5 Comments
Doug
7/12/2017 07:11:28 pm

You state that "Banks have been unpopular in Australia (and elsewhere) for justifiable and unjustifiable reasons". You also seem to be calling for "improvement" and implying that “maybe the system isn’t so healthy; please help us fix it”
To support this could you please give some examples of - again, using your own words - the:
1 - poor behaviour,
2 - toxic cultural norms,
3 - inadequate skills, and
4 - bad incentives
the big 4 are said to exhibit?
Thanks.

Reply
Robert J Swift link
11/12/2017 11:20:41 am

I think that the Commonwealth Bank Financial Planning mayhap is probably the poster child for 1 3 & 4? Advisers received hefty commissions to place (aging) clients into inappropriate financial products. The desire to have high returns with low risk is understandable BUT if the "low risk" comes from simply infrequent pricing then this betrays a lack of capital markets knowledge both within the planning group and the supervising executives. An illiquidity premium where the price is infrequently marked to market but the underlying investment is risky, is not sensible although commonplace. An example would be a highly leveraged loan product where the chances of default are very high but the price is not published or set frequently. Many investors make this mistake - the bank executives in Wealth should know better or at least get trained.
Comminsure is another example of poor behaviour where the Chief Medical Officer claimed the bank avoided payouts because of the "wrong sort of heart attack"
Austrac - the whistle blowers were ignored. If that is not a company wide disincentive to highlight bad behaviour up the line, I do not know what is. I would call this a toxic culture.
As for the loan book - I doubt that all loans have been made with the applicant in full knowledge of the terms and conditions; nor indeed are the applicants truly qualified. I suspect this will come out in the RC if not before.
Thankfully in Australia there has not been a law passed requiring that banks effectively lend money to everybody. Much of the "liar loan" problem in the USA stems actually from successive administrations making it very difficult for the banks to say "No" to loan applicants for fear of discrimination. Barney Frank blamed the private sector but it was actually the Congress that has its fingerprints all over this problem. Please click into the attached url below. I lived in Boston in the USA for a long time so saw this at first hand. The Boston Globe which penned this article, is a staunch supporter of the Democrats so this is not especially politically motivated journalism.
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Please feel free to respond and I thank you for your questions.





Reply
alan hughston
8/12/2017 07:37:10 am

Rob a bank and the law will imprison you. When a bank robs a person, the bank (at worst) wears a fine. It is just a cost of doing business. Putting white collar executives behind bars for criminal behavior might just encourage them to have a care for the society which they plunder.

Reply
Robert J Swift link
11/12/2017 11:55:54 am

Hi,

I think the banks do get unjustified criticism too! They don't set interest rates, nor in many ways do they manage the rate of growth of their loan books...strange as that may seem. They have to lend faster if their deposit base expands faster, unless they wish to see a compression in net margins. One of the consequences of ultra low interest rates and extraordinary central bank policy is the creation of excess reserves at the banks. For a bubble you can safely look to central bankers and we have written a fair bit on this and can send you articles by better qualified economists than us, which point to the damage done by the last decade of experimentation by central banks. Please let me know if you care to receive!
We were also very opposed to the bailout of bank equity holders - it is not called risk capital for nothing! Moral hazard is a real problem which central banks are supposed to prevent - not encourage.
People respond to incentives and the incentives at banks are misaligned at the moment.

Reply
Doug
11/12/2017 03:56:21 pm

Thanks for the insightful reply Robert.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Markets & Commentary

    At TAMIM we are committed to educating investors on how best to manage their retirement futures.

    Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter:

    * indicates required

    TAMIM Asset Management provides general information to help you understand our investment approach. Any financial information we provide is not advice, has not considered your personal circumstances and may not be suitable for you.

    Archives

    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    July 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015

    Categories

    All
    Accounting
    AGM
    Amazon
    APRA
    Asia Small Cap
    Asset Allocation
    Aus Equity All Cap Value Portfolio
    Aus Equity Income Portfolio
    Aus Equity Small Cap Portfolio
    Australian Banks
    Australian Market Commentary
    Banking Royal Commission
    Big 4 Banks
    BNPL
    Brexit
    Budget
    China
    Corporate Governance
    Correlation
    Cryptocurrency
    Currency
    Darren Katz
    Dividend Yields
    Election
    Emerging Markets
    Energy
    GDP
    Global Equity High Conviction Portfolio
    Global Mobility
    Gold
    Guy-carson
    Housing
    Income Investing
    Inflation
    Infrastructure
    Insurance
    Interest Rates
    International Commentary
    Investment Thematics
    Investor Psychology
    Israel
    Japan
    Katz's Corner
    Kevin Smith
    Market Outlook
    Mergers-aquisitions
    Mobility
    Oil
    Passive-vs-active
    Peer-to-peer-lending
    Peertopeer-lending
    Portfolio Management
    Portfolio-management
    Private Debt
    Property
    Rando's Reflections
    RBA
    Recession
    REITs
    Reporting Season
    Retail
    Risk Management
    Robert Swift
    Ron Shamgar
    Small Cap Income Portfolio
    Small Caps
    Succesion Planning
    Telecoms
    The Pain Report
    Trade War
    Trump
    Value Investing
    Video
    ZIRP

    RSS Feed

TAMIM | Equities | Property | Credit
​

TAMIM Fund
Australia All Cap
Australia Small Cap Income
Global Mobility
Global High Conviction
Credit

Listed Property
TAMIM Property
Company
About
Contact
Insights
Invest Online
Login
Other
Privacy Policy
Terms & 
Conditions
​Disclaimer
Contact
Level 4, 55 Grafton Street
Bondi Junction, Sydney NSW, 2022

1300 750 007

ima@tamim.com.au

DISCLAIMER

​The information provided on this website should not be considered financial or investment advice and is general information intended only for wholesale clients ( as defined in the Corporations Act). If you are not a wholesale client, you should exit the website. The content has been prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial situations or needs. You should seek personal financial advice before making any financial or investment decisions. Where the website refers to a particular financial product, you should obtain a copy of the relevant product services guide or offer document for wholesale investors before making any decision in relation to the product. Investment returns are not guaranteed as all investments carry some risk. The value of an investment may rise or fall with the changes in the market. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. This statement relates to any claims made regarding past performance of any Tamim (or associated companies) products. Tamim does not guarantee the accuracy of any information in this website, including information provided by third parties. Information can change without notice and Tamim will endeavour to update this website as soon as practicable after changes. Tamim Funds Management Pty Limited and CTSP Funds Management Pty Ltd trading as Tamim Asset Management and its related entities do not accept responsibility for any inaccuracy or any actions taken in reliance upon this advice. All information provided on this website is correct at the time of writing and is subject to change due to changes in legislation. Please contact Tamim if you wish to confirm the currency of any information on the website.  

magellen, kosec, clime, wilson, wam, montgomery, platinum, commsec, caledonia, pengana, tamim

  • HOME
  • INVESTMENTS
    • Equities >
      • Australia All Cap
      • Australia Small Cap Income
      • Global Mobility
      • Global High Conviction
    • Property >
      • Listed Property
      • TAMIM Property
    • Income >
      • Credit
  • INSIGHTS
    • Insights
    • Weekly Reading Lists
  • ABOUT
  • CONTACT