Banks

<html><body>
Is it a case of banks don’t know what’s going on, or is it more a statement they don’t want to know? Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee and read on. Don’t forget, your comments are welcomed and be sure to share them.
There are three main issues that banks appear to be very silent on and the question that is fitting in this property-climate is simply: “why are they so quiet?” A question which begs a straight answer; especially with the concerns surrounding foreign and local property investors buying newly built property and pricing local first-time-home-buyers out.
The three concerns and issues I refer to are:
·     Rental guarantees
·     Overly inflated commissions and
·     The scourge of the financial industry sector, selling property without a real estate industry license.
My immediate guess is, if you are riding the “Gravy Train” of “Overseas &amp; Local Investors” why should these seemingly illegal practices be of concern to banks? Again and for now, I’m just speculating that; it’s best to turn a blind eye than it is to confront what may well be considered unfair and unjust to local home buyers. After all, first-time-home-buyers aren’t the flavor of the month to all concerned, now are they?
It is my strong belief that the three topics noted, create an unfair advantage that has driven property values sky-high as developers reach for the skies.
Why is this unfair? I have previously discussed in other articles, “Rental-Guarantees” and “Overly-Inflated Commissions” are ultimately paid by the investor.
<a href="https://mail.privatemedia.com.au/owa/redir.aspx?SURL=buh8exBazU3bNSloPOr0rrJNNQesJNSotxGFO7YMkRixynWPdWzSCGgAdAB0AHAAOgAvAC8AdwB3AHcALgBsAGkAbgBrAGUAZABpAG4ALgBjAG8AbQAvAHAAdQBsAHMAZQAvAGkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGEAdABpAG8AbgBhAGwALQBpAG4AdgBlAHMAdABvAHIAcwAtAGIAZQBpAG4AZwAtAGQAdQBwAGUAZAAtAHMAeQBkAG4AZQB5AC0AYQB1AHMAdAByAGEAbABpAGEALQBlAGQAdwBpAG4ALQBhAGwAbQBlAGkAZABhAA..&amp;URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.linkedin.com%2fpulse%2finternational-investors-being-duped-sydney-australia-edwin-almeida"> </a>Ha! And you thought the developers were generous and paid for these right? Therefore, driving the values of the newly built properties upward.
Now allow me to break it down for you.
Rental guarantees:
What is common amidst most of the activity surrounding the sales of newly built property is the rental guarantees. Some rental guarantees are lasting for as long as 3 years.
It is my belief that any incentive made by the vendor or the agent to enhance the sale, the incentive has to be disclosed and must also form part of the contract of sale. The inducement being the rental guarantee but this is not limited to a rental guarantee.
In my time I have also seen cars and furniture packages form part of sales incentives, all in the aim to entice the investor to buy.
Inflated Commissions:
Yes, I know I speak out a lot about this very subject but when spruikers earn 5 times what the local agent earns in one sale, there has to be something wrong. If I don’t speak out, will the REI NSW step in or any of the REI’s for that matter?
I stopped holding that breath 4 years ago.
Nevertheless, the banking bodies should take note as their clients (the investors) are ultimately paying for this.
I also note that most of my endeared friends that have created this negative impact on the local home front, all sell newly built property. An arena where highly inflated commissions can and are paid out.
Selling without an industry license:
The temptation is just too great and the grass is greener on the other side. When so much money is at stake we have seen; brokers, accountants, financial planners and advisers jump the fence to moonlight as real estate agents as they lead their clients astray.
Again, this is an area where the banks should focus on, as local investors fall prey to the rogues within the financial sector.
A closer eye and perhaps a magnifying glass should be used to review contracts especially when the buyers are: Trustee Companies for Self-Managed-Super-Fund (SMSF) Trusts. More to the point when the property is new as this is the territory where these rogues, feast and boast about the high commissions earned.
Rental guarantees, overly inflated commissions and spruikers selling real estate without a license under the guise of calling themselves property-marketers: should send alarm bells ringing through the banking sector. But once more, why is there so much silence surrounding the very issues that have overly inflated the value of a new property in Sydney?
Getting to the nuts and bolts
Unethical real estate agents, spruikers, property marketing companies and the scourge of the financial sector; all have been ensnared by the prize of the high commissions and in turn lure investors by creating false perceptions of property: growth, demand, under-supply and high return on investment. How? By the simple use of instruments (such as rental guarantees) outside of the contract of sale and therefore, making the transaction questionable and unconscionable.
The falsely represented, high priced, new property sales ultimately filters down to established homes and we have what I refer to as “property-osmosis”. Property osmosis is an upward pull of established property's prices, caused by the exaggerated values of the surrounding new developments.
Most people are also under the impression that Overseas-Investors are paying for their properties with 100% cash. However, that it is not the case. Most investors buy property with a high deposit and borrow 50-60% through a loan vehicle.
In actual fact, Chinese citizens can only take up to $50,000 out of China through legal channels. However, there are means and ways to take $200K-$400K without much fuss.
Therefore, banks are more than happy to lend at 60% Loan to Value Ratios, as they are well secured even if the market dips by 20-30%. As you can see, there is very little risk for the banks.
Then there are our home grown Local-Investors that have been enticed to buy. Their property investment guides as previously mentioned are mainly, property spruikers and financial experts that assist in creating (SMSF) schemes to buy property. These vehicles also requiring low LVRs to purchase.
Typically, the SMSF schemes may borrow 70-80% to buy the investment property. Again the banking sector feeling secure on all counts.
What banks and Industry bodies need to do
The first and foremost prudent demand banks should place on the real estate industry is, for the “Sales Inspection Report and Agency Agreement” to be disclosed. Disclosure of what the “AGENCY” is being rewarded for the sale, will provide a twofold and strong indication to the valuer if there are any hidden agreements not being revealed.
·     Overinflated commissions
·     Payments made to agent/agency to cover rental guarantees and other incentives not disclosed in the Contract of Sale, which are passed on to the investor.
A copy of the agency/corporation license, should also accompany the contract of sale when providing the relevant documentation to the valuers. For the bank valuers to properly asses the true value of the property.
·     An agency or business name on the front page of the contract inserted after "Vendor's Agent" does not represent that the agent holds an industry license.
Perhaps at this very moment there is simply too much at stake to curve these questionable practices. The banks, financial institutions, real estate agents and we may also include the government, are all making too much money on this gravy train, to really care about our local first home buyers.
I am troubled nonetheless to think that all these practices that may be considered highly questionable if not illegal, have and continue to go on and right under the very noses of the banking institutions.
EDWIN ALMEIDA is licensee in charge of <a href="https://www.just-think.com.au/" target="_blank">Just Think Real Estate</a>.<a href="https://www.just-thin.com.au/"> </a>
He is also the creator of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/JustThinkProperty" target="_blank">Oz Real Estate.TV</a> and a presenter for <a href="https://propertyinvestingvault.com/" target="_blank">propertyinvestingvault.com</a>.
 
</body></html>

ealmedia-arK4DBYLjS

Banks turning a blind eye: Edwin Almeida

<html><body>
An independent report by KPMG has highlighted the operational resilience, innovation and confidence of customer owned banking in navigating the economic uncertainty of COVID-19.
The <a href="https://customerownedbankingassociation.cmail20.com/t/d-l-chluytk-jlujgjiij-r/" target="_blank" data-auth="NotApplicable">KPMG Mutuals Industry Review 2020</a> reports that 70% of surveyed customer owned banking institutions feel confident in their three-year growth prospects, representing a notable increase from 63% in 2019.
“This has been a tough year for all, but our members continue to prioritise the needs of their customers as the economy looks to the recovery phase,” says Michael Lawrence, CEO of the Customer Owned Banking Association.
“Our sector has grown over the year with residential lending increasing by 3.0% and deposits increasing by 7.0%. This market share underlines the fact that customer owned banking institutions continue to be seen as an attractive proposition for customers.
“As noted by the report, our members have maintained a reputation for trust through a period of increased public scrutiny. They have a deep alignment with their customers, and this trust is a cornerstone of their resilience as they move forward together. 
“This is also reflected in their community involvement, which most members view as a key differentiator to their business. 
“While our sector continues to compete on price, we are also at the forefront of technology and innovation, including alliances with fintech companies. For example, <a href="https://customerownedbankingassociation.cmail20.com/t/d-l-chluytk-jlujgjiij-y/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">Newcastle Permanent</a> struck a $300 million home loan funding deal with Athena Home Loans, enabling the customer owned banking institution to utilise Athena’s digital home loan platform to attract new borrowers. 
“Headquartered in Armidale, <a href="https://customerownedbankingassociation.cmail20.com/t/d-l-chluytk-jlujgjiij-j/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">Regional Australia Bank</a> is a market leader of Open Banking. As one of only two accredited data recipients, the institution collaborated with fintech ‘Basiq’ to approve a loan application end-to-end in under six minutes. These examples showcase the strength of the customer owned model in using technology to innovate and improve the customer experience.  
“With our members now supporting over 4.5 million customers, it’s important for government and regulators to apply proportionality to upcoming regulations. New rules should be well-targeted, fit for purpose, and not an impediment to growth. A competitive banking market is vital to economic recovery.”
The KPMG Report is based on a survey of 47 customer owned banking institutions.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Customer owned banking sector shows confidence and resilience: COBA

<html><body>
Banks may increase variable mortgage rates to recoup pandemic-induced losses despite a stagnant cash rate, according to experts.  In this month's <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/rba-cash-rate" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-auth="NotApplicable">Finder RBA Cash Rate Survey</a>, all the experts surveyed expect a cash rate hold in September (40/40), more than half of those who weighed in (57%, 16) believe that banks will raise their variable mortgage rates despite the Reserve Bank indicating that the cash rate will remain motionless for some time.
Another course of action the banks took is, earlier in August, Westpac and ANZ announced that they are cutting or deferring dividends to shore up company profits.
The majority of economists who weighed in (88%, 22) believe that the nation’s other big banks will soon follow suit by slashing dividends or removing them altogether.
Cooke said that banks are taking a cautious approach as we enter a period of economic uncertainty.
“Banks are slashing shareholder dividends in an attempt to mitigate the financial disruption caused by the virus."
“This won’t come as welcome news for existing shareholders, but many investors will be seeing these plunging share prices as a great opportunity to buy discounted stocks,” he said.
Economic sentiment spikes
Finder’s Economic Sentiment Tracker, which gauges five key indicators – housing affordability, employment, wage growth, cost of living and household debt– shows a significant increase in overall economic sentiment since its lowest point in March 2020, rising from 8% to 24% in August
<img src="https://mcusercontent.com/cc5e9bce699fa1d71a67cf499/images/232c13b1-5dcf-4681-b36f-67bd31c9a816.png" data-imagetype="External"> Despite the uncertainty regarding the virus, more than half (57%, 20) of respondents believe that Australia will see GDP growth in 2020.  Leanne Pilkington of Laing+Simmons said Australia has been able to weather the economic storm of coronavirus better than other nations.  "Relatively speaking, the economic fallout of the coronavirus that is reverberating around global markets has not impacted Australia as hard as many other nations.  Even considering Victoria’s second wave and the potential for subsequent outbreaks elsewhere, employment figures are encouraging and other key indicators point to our economy’s overall resilience,” she said. 
</body></html>

Experts forecast Australian banks will cut or defer dividends: Finder Survey

<html><body>
Six of Australia's largest banking and financial services institutions have paid or offered a total of $1.05 billion in compensation, as at 30 June 2020, to customers who suffered loss or detriment because of fees for no service (FFNS) misconduct or non-compliant advice.
This is an additional $295.9m in compensation payments or offers by the institutions from 1 January to 30 June 2020.
AMP, ANZ, CBA, Macquarie, NAB and Westpac (the institutions) undertook the review and remediation programs to compensate affected customers [i] as a result of two major ASIC reviews. ASIC commenced the reviews in 2015 to look into:
<ul>
<li>the extent of failure by the institutions to deliver ongoing advice services to financial advice customers who were paying fees to receive those services and</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>how effectively the institutions supervised their financial advisers to identify and deal with ‘non-compliant advice’ – i.e. personal advice provided to a retail client by an adviser who did not comply with the relevant conduct obligations in the Corporations Act, such as the obligations to give appropriate advice or to act in the best interests of the clients, at the time the advice was given. </li>
</ul>
The table below provides a breakdown of the compensation payments made or offered by the institution as at 30 June 2020.
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2" valign="top" width="99">
Institution
</td>
<td colspan="2" valign="top" width="240">
FFNS misconduct
</td>
<td colspan="2" valign="top" width="262">
Non-compliant advice <a href="https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2020-releases/20-193mr-asic-update-on-compensation-for-financial-advice-related-misconduct/#note-iii">[iii]</a>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="120">
Compensation paid or offered
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
No. of customers paid or offered compensation
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
Compensation paid
 
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
No. of customers paid compensation
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
AMP
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$145,719,911
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
199,425
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
$28,647,008
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
2,043
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
ANZ
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$66,653,885
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
26,461
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
$39,182,569
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
1,920
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
CBA
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$167,131,529
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
54,826
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
$9,354,027
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
626
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
Macquarie
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$3,970,000
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
983
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
-
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
-
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
NAB
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$368,075,052
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
626,863
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
$52,185,609
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
1,623
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
Westpac
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$130,508,318
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
28,350
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
$34,197,446
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
1,647
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="99">
Total
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
$882,058,695
</td>
<td valign="top" width="120">
936,908
</td>
<td valign="top" width="118">
$163,566,659
</td>
<td valign="top" width="144">
7,859
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<h2>ASIC released REP 499 in October 2016 describing systemic failures in the advice divisions of AMP, ANZ, CBA and NAB, as well as some of their product issuers. These included the failure to ensure provision of ongoing advice services to customers who paid fees to receive those services, the failure of advisers to provide those services, and the failure of product issuers to switch off advice fees of customers who did not have a financial advise.</h2>
</body></html>

Banks compensate fees for no service misconduct

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
Last week the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) sent an <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/capital-management">extraordinary letter</a> to Australia’s banks and insurers, essentially telling them to cut their dividend payments to shareholders in light of the coronavirus crisis.
It said it expected banks and insurers to “seriously consider deferring decisions on the appropriate level of dividends”.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326728/original/file-20200409-188923-1pxiqkj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326728/original/file-20200409-188923-1pxiqkj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Read the full <a class="source" href="https://www.apra.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-04/Capital%20management.pdf" target="_blank">APRA letter to financial institutions, April 7, 2020</a>.
Where a board was confident that it could approve a dividend on the basis of robust stress testing that had been discussed with APRA, it should “nevertheless be at a materially reduced level”.
Where dividends were paid those payments should be “offset to the extent possible through the use of dividend reinvestment plans and other capital management initiatives”.
With Australia’s big four banks potentially suffering big losses due to mortgage defaults among other things, their capital bases are at risk.
Equity research analysts at <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/08/world/asia/08reuters-health-coronavirus-australia-banks">Macquarie</a> outline a scenario under which bank losses reach A$25-27 billion per bank, and their capacity to pay dividends (without raising equity) materially diminishes
Why did APRA do it?
The letter isn’t a “ban” on dividends, and APRA wasn’t telling the banks anything they don’t already know. So why did it bother?
The answer lies in the economics of how investors react to firms that don’t pay the dividends expected.
Seen through that lens, APRA was very clever indeed.
In a classic 1985 paper <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb02362.x">Merton Miller and Kevin Rock</a> provided a theoretical answer to the puzzle of why paying dividends seems to signal good news to investors, and why cutting dividends seems to signal bad news, and cuts the share price.
In the Miller-Rock model, the managers of a firm have better information about its future prospects than outside investors.
To keep it simple, imagine there are two “types” of firms: good and bad.
Good firms have high future cashflows, bad ones have low ones.
Only the managers know which is which.
Because both types of firm can earn something from investing in the business, it is in the interest of both (more so the good firm) to invest rather than pay out dividends.
Miller and Rock wondered whether what each type of firm did provided clues to investors about whether the managers thought it was good or bad.
Surprisingly, they found that usually good firms will pay high dividend and bad firms no dividends.
It is surprising because good firms are sacrificing more by paying dividends.
Their logic was that the bad firms were the least able to afford good dividends and that good firms knew this and paid high dividends to signal they could afford to.
It has a striking implication with <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w4244">strong empirical support</a>.
If a firm gets a temporary negative shock to its cashflow or investment prospects it won’t want to cut its dividend lest investors think it has turned “bad”.
It will borrow or even do short-term damage to its prospects in order to maintain investor confidence and hence a high stock price.
Get out of jail free
Notice that the signalling theory of dividends implies that the managers of firms would like to cut dividends in tough financial times, and probably should, but they worry about sending a bad signal to investors.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/328304/original/file-20200416-192698-pj1hzp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
An announcement like APRA’s provides them with cover – an excuse.
And it does more. It is what economists refer to as a “coordination device”.
If the big four banks got together and agreed cut their dividends by the same amount, say in half (which would be illegal) investors would get no differential signal and no new information about which bank was “good” and which was “bad”.
APRA’s message opens up the possibility of all four coordinating without talking – merely by following advice.
As 2005 Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling put it in his book, <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674840317&amp;content=reviews">The Strategy of Conflict</a>,
"People can often concert their intentions or expectations with others if each knows that the other is trying to do the same."
And they’ve an interest in coordinating. If one bank falls over during this crisis and needs to be bailed out that’s bad for all of them. All of their stock prices will tank, it will be hard for them to raise the capital they need to fund their operations.
Australia’s banks compete, but they are “frenemies”, right now more friends than enemies.
We will have to wait and see if they pick up the get-out-of-jail card APRA has handed them and cut dividends together.
APRA could have taken a tougher stance. It could have banned dividends. But that would have sent a bad signal to domestic and international capital markets about the solvency of our banks.
I have been critical of some of APRA’s moves in recent years. But this one is brilliant. Let’s hope the banks can see a life raft when they’re offered one.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136407/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-holden-118107">Richard Holden</a>, Professor of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-apras-extraordinary-gift-to-banks-under-pressure-to-pay-dividends-136407">original article</a>.
</body></html>

rh-YsoTT2xMuQ

APRA's extraordinary gift to banks under pressure to pay dividends

<html><body>
The ANZ and BOQ banks on Griffith Street in Coolangatta, Queensland have been offered to the market.
They are being offered for sale via an expressions of interest campaign closing 28 November 2019.
Situated in 24-28 Griffith Street, they sit on a 473 sqm block.
The rental earning for the holding are $248,409 per annum.
There is a brand new 5 year lease to ANZ and an ongoing 7 year lease to BOQ.
It is located a 5 minute drive to the Gold Coast International Airport.
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

Coolangatta ANZ and BOQ bank premises listed

<html><body>
Scone's Westpac branch building has sold under the hammer for $730,000.
The building at 170-172 Kelly Street in the Scone town centre has been occupied by Westpac for over 15 years.
They currently have a lease until 2022, with options to 2032.
The property, with 430 sqm of NLA and a 22 metre retail frontage, sold with a net income of $48,000 per annum.
It last traded in 2015 when it sold for $582,000, slow growth from its $550,000 sale 10 years earlier.
Kieran Bourke and Beau Coulter, from Burgess Rawson Melbourne, secured the sale.
</body></html>

Scone's Westpac branch building sells at auction

<html><body>
The NAB bank branch premises in Church Street, Brighton has come onto the market for the first time in 23 years.
It is expected to fetch as much as $6 million.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/8/9/NAB%20site.jpg" alt="">
NAB has a long-term lease over the property, and is presently returning $214,470 per annum (plus outgoings including land tax).
The Church Street property is positioned between Carpenter Street and Saint Andrews Street.
The retail strip is currently experiencing a record low 0% vacancy.
Most of the neighbouring tenants are high-end retailers such as Country Road, Mecca, Scanlan Theodore, Seed Heritage, Bed Bath N Table, and Sportscraft.
Agent Chris James, at the Fitzroys agency, asserted that “Church Street has retained its reputation as Melbourne’s best-performing retail strip, [while] consistently boasting the State’s lowest vacancy rates”.
The 288 square metre site is scheduled to be auctioned on August 29.
</body></html>

Church Street, Brighton NAB premises for August auction

<html><body>
ANZ and Westpac have changed their respective home-loan serviceability floor rates while increasing their buffer rates to 2.5%. 
Westpac will assess home loan borrowers against their capacity to repay the loan at 5.75 per cent, a reduction from 7.25 per cent, in a move that should make it easier for people to secure loans.
The bank moved just days after the ANZ Banking Group became the first lender to pass on the benefit of the loosened lending limits.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced earlier this month that it would relax rules to allow banks to assess a borrower's ability to repay their mortgage if interest rates rose to 7 per cent.
Under the change in rules, banks would now only have to apply a 2.5 per cent "sensitivity margin" on current interest rates when assessing home loan eligibility.
ANZ yesterday told mortgage brokers it would lower its mortgage assessment floor to 5.5 per cent as of yesterday.
RateCity estimates that if a bank used an assessment rate of 6 per cent instead of the current 7.25 per cent, a family of four with an average household income of $109,688 would see their borrowing capacity rise by $77,000.
Commonwealth Bank and National Australia Bank are reviewing their serviceability requirements. 
</body></html>

Which banks have made it easier to get home loans after APRA decision?

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The Customer Owned Banking Association (COBA) has strongly criticised a Treasury proposal to hike levies on smaller banks while cutting levies for the four major banks.
Treasury is proposing dramatic increases in levies on customer owned banks and smaller listed banks while gifting the big four a $3 million levy reduction (see Treasury table below).
The levies are intended to cover higher regulatory costs for the banking regulator APRA flowing from the Financial Services Royal Commission.
Smaller banks’ levies are sharply ratcheted upwards by more than 25% while major bank levies are reduced.
This makes no sense at all given it was the misconduct of the major banks that has prompted the need to increase resourcing for APRA.
Customer owned banking institutions have not engaged in the misconduct examined by the Royal Commission but now face being forced to ‘pay the price’.
These proposals send a very confusing signal about the Government’s intention to hold the major banks accountable for their conduct.
Major banks already have a head start on their smaller competitors through various aspects of the regulatory framework.
They don’t deserve the extra help of a cut in their APRA levies while their much smaller competitors are hit with huge increases.
Click <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/images/2019/6/6/ADI%20Levies.JPG" target="_blank">here</a> to enlarge
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2019/6/6/ADI%20Levies.JPG" alt="">
I urge the Treasurer to intervene and rule out these grossly unfair increases in APRA levies on COBA member banking institutions.
Regulator industry levies should be set with sensitivity to the cost burden on smaller banking institutions and with more weighting given to the systemic importance and market power of major banks.
The Productivity Commission describes the banking market as ‘an established oligopoly where the four major banks hold substantial market power and this is substantially supported by regulatory settings which contribute to the major banks’ structural advantages.
Sharply increasing levies paid by smaller banking institutions while reducing levies paid by major banks will make a bad situation worse.
MICHAEL LAWRENCE is the CEO of the Customer Owned Banking Association. 
</body></html>

Banks

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Banks

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News