A- A A+

Will Australian banks have to reduce their dividends?

26 October 2014  |  Investing

CapitalAustralian banks are high on the list of being 'too big to fail'. Not only do they dominate the stock exchange, they also are the main players in Australia's $5 trillion property market, by far the biggest pool of capital in the country. If they got into trouble, the repercussions would be profound on the whole economy.

True, they are not too big to fail in the way some of the global investment banks have been. Since 2007, the entire world's financial system has depended on their survival. A recent stress test has found that many European banks are a long way from being out of the woods. Twenty four have failed a stress test.

The current financial services inquiry, which has been fronted by a former CEO of Commonwealth Bank David Murray, is looking like asking the banks for more equity capital, according to the AFR. This could have an effect on the capital available for dividends:


"Recommendations are yet to be finalised, but interviews with sources close to the inquiry revealed it will ­recommend the four major banks ­substantially increase their “common equity tier-one capital” buffer to ­compensate for the lower funding costs they receive because investors perceive them as “too big to fail”.

The Financial System Inquiry is also preparing to impose a minimum “floor” on the “risk-weightings” the major banks apply to their home loans, which will create a more level playing field for competitors.

The inquiry is focused on creating a more resilient financial system that can withstand shocks and weather frozen funding markets, however, the Financial Review understands it has a preference for encouraging banks to boost “going concern” equity capital rather using more complex “gone ­concern” capital, such as hybrids and bonds that can be “bailed in” by reg­ulators to become equity.

Sources said the inquiry believes that more equity and less leverage will reduce the risk of bank failures, whereas hybrids and bail-in bonds only allow governments to minimise the damage once disaster has struck.

The inquiry also has concerns that the loss-absorbing capital instruments, such as the bail-in bonds being ­considered by global regulators, create complexity and confusion about the rights of different funders compared with ­traditional debt and equity.


The big banks have been lobbying the inquiry to use loss-absorbing capital as a substitute for increasing equity, which they argue is too costly."



There are some positive signs. The so called “ring-fencing” laws that are popular in Britain and the US will probably not be needed because Australia's banks have tended not to get into the highly complex investment banking activities that created conflicts and which proved to be highly dangerous. They have had little need; they make fabulous profits from conventional mortgage lending. They may also be given a pass on paying for the government’s free guarantee of ­deposits, which was a response to the GFC.

But they do look likely to be asked to retain more capital. Given Australia's soaring property market, that may be a highly prudent move, providing a buffer against a sharp correction in house prices. But it may put pressure on the capital available for dividends:


"The Financial Review understands the Murray inquiry’s final report may call for an increase in the common equity tier-one capital buffer for the large banks from 1 per cent to 2 per cent or 3 per cent. It is also likely to ­recommend a minimum risk-weighting floor on home loans of 20 per cent.

Non-major banks now have ­minimum 35 per cent risk weightings applied to home loans, but the majors have no minimum, which has left them with much lower average risk-weightings of 18 per cent, according to APRA.

This means the majors hold less than half the capital, more than twice the ­leverage and can, in theory, generate ­double the returns of competitors.

Analysis published by Morgan Stanley and UBS suggests an increase in the majors’ too-big-to-fail equity buffer from 1 per cent to 2 per cent, combined with a new 20 per cent risk-weighting floor, would result in about a $24 billion deficiency in equity capital. The banks would, however, have until 2019 to implement the changes."




Source articles

Similar articles from Investing

Analysts ask if the market has reached a bottom

 | 10/20/2014

BottomPicking the bottom of the market is the best way to make money. But doing it is difficult, and DIY super investors will need to be careful.

Managing volatility

 | 10/19/2014

VolatilityVolatility is a psychological challenge to SMSF investors. The basic principles are clear enough, but actually adhering to them is always difficult.

Are the dangers in the world economy a super buying opportunity?

 | 10/16/2014

OpportunityPeriods of pessimism and market weakness can make the best buying opportunities. The danger in the current situation is that there remains a weakness in the system itself. The global financial crisis is not yet over.

How should cash be understood?

 | 10/12/2014

UnderstoodMany DIY investors have a proprtion of their holdings in cash, which is providing low returns. Should cash be considered part of portfolios, or a way of waiting before making the 'right' investment?

The hybrid puzzle

 | 10/8/2014

PuzzleHybrids, which are somewhere between shares and debt, have been marketed as a potential way for investors to diversify. But they have often disappointed when their price has fallen. Are they an option for DIY super?



Subscribe to the Personal Super Investor weekly email to keep abreast of developments in SMSF law and investment markets. SMSF investors looking to improve investment returns from shares, property, cash or other specialised investments, will find the PSI weekly newsletter an invaluable resource.

Subscribe now »



The contents of this website are of a general nature only and have not been prepared to take into account any particular investor's objectives, financial situation or particular needs. Our content is not intended to be advice and must not be relied upon as such. You should seek independent advice tailored to your specific circumstances prior to making any decisions. Personal Super Investor does not provide financial product advice or recommend any financial products: Where this website or it derived newsletter/electronic publication refers to a particular financial product, whether it be within our editorial or a 3rd party advertising, advertising promotion or advertorial, then you should obtain a Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) relating to that product and consider the PDS before making any decision about whether to acquire the product. We also recommend that you should seek professional advice from a financial adviser before making any decision to purchase any financial product referred to on this website. We do not make any representation or warranty that any material on the Personal Super Investor website will be reliable, accurate or complete, nor do we accept any responsibility arising in any way from errors or omissions of our content or any content provided by any advertiser appearing the Personal Super Investor website. We will not be liable for loss resulting from any action or decision by you in reliance on the Material (whether editorial or advertising) on the Personal Super Investor website, nor any interruption, delay in operation or transmission, virus, communications failure, Internet access difficulties, or malfunction in your equipment or software. By using the site you acknowledge that we are not responsible for, and accept no liability in relation to any content contained on the site that you may use, including any other users’ use of the Personal Super Investor website in any circumstance. You use the Personal Super Investor website at your sole risk.