Category: Banks & Interest Rates

From Sarah Danckert:

The ASIC review of investments banks found that not only do the heavyweights of Australia’s financial system have difficulty in managing their conflicts of interest they also financially reward staff for potentially conflicted behaviour.

…..So ugly is the result the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has warned the people often known as the smartest men and women in the room it will take action against the culprits if the poor behaviour continues.

……Managing conflicts of interest are crucial for investment banks because often one part of the bank is advising on an asset sale or an initial public offering while the bank’s research arm is producing research for the investment banks’ investor clients about the quality of the assets or the IPO.

….ASIC said it had also found “instances of remuneration structures where research remuneration decisions, including discretionary bonuses, took into account research analyst involvement in marketing corporate transactions”.

The review also found “instances with mid-sized firms where research reports on a company were authored by the corporate advisory team that advised the company on a capital-raising transaction or had an ongoing corporate advisory mandate”.

Results of the review come as no surprise. When there is a conflict between profits with multi-million dollar bonuses and independence the outcome should be obvious.

Having worked in the industry, I believe that the only way to achieve independence is to separate investment banks from research houses, with no financial linkage. A professional body for research houses would ensure independence in much the same way as the auditing profession. There is no better way of enforcing good behavior than the threat of censure from a professional body that has the power to prevent its members from practicing.

Source: ASIC review of investment banks post UBS-Baird government run-in shows poor practice

From Clancy Yeates:

Australia’s banks face the threat of higher funding costs, after Standard & Poor’s downgraded the big four’s credit rating outlook to “negative”, a direct result of its action on the government’s top-notch rating.

….the banks’ credit ratings are automatically raised by two notches because S&P assumes they would receive government support in times of financial stress. Action on the government’s rating therefore tends to flow directly into the banks’ ratings.

“The negative outlooks on these banks reflect our view that the ratings benefit from government support and that we would expect to downgrade these entities if we lower the long-term local currency sovereign credit rating on Australia,” Standard & Poor’s said.

While the warning does not reflect changes in the banks’ financial performance, analysts say that if it leads to a downgrade in the actual credit rating of banks, it could push up bank funding costs all the same.

….”While Australian banks enjoy relatively high credit ratings and are deemed to be in the top quartile of global capital requirements, the frequent use of offshore wholesale funding markets is likely to result in higher funding costs.”

The big four raise about 30 per cent of their funding by issuing bonds in wholesale funding markets, so the cost of this debt can have a significant influence on the sector…..

To avoid moral hazard, with banks taking unnecessary risk at the taxpayer’s expense — a case of heads I win, tails you lose — Treasury and the RBA should commit themselves to the Swedish example. Banks that require rescue should forfeit control of their assets by issue of a controlling equity stake to the government. That would significantly curtail management and shareholders’ willingness to take unnecessary risks. And create a strong incentive to increase capital buffers. Not just to comply with APRA rules, but to make their businesses as bullet-proof as possible. Conservatively-run banks would be a major asset to the economy.

What APRA needs to focus on is instilling the right culture in banks. Rather than management focused on incentives to grow the business, there should be more emphasis on protecting the business and ensuring its long-term survival.

Source: Major banks’ credit rating outlook cut to ‘negative’