Light-touch competition policy hasn’t helped Australian mortgage holders. It’s time to get tough

My latest in The Guardian

Just two weeks after Prof Allan Fels reported on the extent of monopoly power and resultant price gouging, Australia’s supreme body on competition law has delivered its answer.

The Australian competition tribunal has determined that the banking industry has all the competition we need and that no harm will be done by allowing ANZ to swallow one of the few competitors to the Big Four by acquiring the banking operations of Suncorp. This was the latest in a string of defeats for the Australian competition and consumer commission (ACCC), the regulator formerly headed by Prof Fels.

In effect, the tribunal reversed the burden of proof. Whereas the ACCC said it was not satisfied that the merger would not reduce competition significantly, the tribunal said this was not enough. It was up to the ACCC to prove the seemingly obvious point that a large firm taking over a smaller rival would reduce competition.

Perhaps this is a case of ‘Buggins’ turn’, with the ANZ having missed out on the acquisition party so far

In making its decision, the tribunal referred to the competition provided by Macquarie Bank, the sole survivor from the rush of entrants to the banking industry in the wake of deregulation in the 1980s, and to the role played by mortgage brokers like Aussie Home Loans (established in 1992).

This account ignores the disappearance of Advance Bank, St George Bank and the Bank of Melbourne, all swallowed by Westpac, Bankwest (now part of the Commonwealth Bank) and digital bank “86 400”, taken over by NAB, among others. But perhaps this is a case of “Buggins’ turn”, with the ANZ having missed out on the acquisition party so far.

Most of the institutions that have disappeared were originally either building societies or publicly owned lending institutions. That’s true of Suncorp bank, formed from a merger of Metway (the former Metropolitan Permanent Building Society) and the Queensland Industry Development Corporation (formerly the Queensland Agricultural Bank).

In the pre-deregulation era, these institutions provided important competition for the private banks, which were subject to relatively stringent regulatory constraints in return for privileged access to support from the Reserve Bank. Deregulation removed those constraints, while maintaining the benefits of bank status. Non-bank financial institutions found it nearly impossible to compete, and most turned themselves into small banks, ripe for takeover.

Competition did produce some reductions in bank margins over the course of the 1980s, though much of the reduction was offset by increased fees and charges. But in the 15 or so years since the global financial crisis, margins have barely moved. Meanwhile, the average new mortgage (adjusted for inflation) has risen by about 60%. So the banks are making a lot more money for the same basic service.

As in other industries, such as electricity and telecommunications, the privatisation of government enterprises in the banking sector was undertaken in the belief that competition would protect consumers from exploitation. This was the central theme of the report of the National Competition Policy Review Committee, usually called the Hilmer review after its chair, Fred Hilmer, who subsequently became (among other things) a director of Macquarie Bank. The central theme of the review was the need to protect private enterprise from the unfair competition of the public sector. The ACCC was supposed to keep private monopolists in line.

Thirty years after the Hilmer review, it’s evident that nothing of the kind has happened. Markets are as concentrated as ever and the ethic of public service which continued to influence firms such as Qantas, Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank for some time after privatisation has long since disappeared.

If competition policy is to have any real effect, it must be strengthened. First, responding to the latest tribunal decision, competition policy should reverse the burden of proof. Any acquisition by a dominant firm should be presumed to be anti-competitive, and it should be up to the acquirer to prove otherwise. As recommended in the Fels report, there should be a divestiture power, enabling previous mergers to be unwound.

But this is unlikely to be enough. As in the cases of electricity and telecommunications, it is necessary for the public sector to re-enter the market. In the case of banking, the urgency is increased by the rapid disappearance of cash, which is increasing our dependence on banks whether we like it or not.

We need a public guarantee of access to cash, perhaps provided through Australia Post. In the longer term, as physical cash inevitably fades, we may need to consider the provision of digital cash issued by the Reserve Bank. This could provide the basis for publicly guaranteed savings accounts, independent of the private banking system.

Decades of “light-handed” regulation under neoliberalism have done little to benefit Australian households. In competition policy and elsewhere, it’s time to for government to get a bit more heavy-handed.

2 thoughts on “Light-touch competition policy hasn’t helped Australian mortgage holders. It’s time to get tough

  1. And Bank of Queensland bought Members Equity Bank, trashing that “brand” in the process – worse service and higher prices.

    What annoys me is the existing customer penalty, I’ve just swicthed my mortgage again because the retention teams can’t offer the same deals that new customers get. The price is 10-20 hours of paperwork but the discount is at least 0.2% which even for my small mortgage (!!!) is a decent hourly rate over the 2-3 years I stick with a given bank.

  2. It may be time to consider the introduction of the US system where default mortgages are the bank’s problem in every way. If a mortgagee cannot pay their loan, they merely leave the property and the mortgagor must stick to selling the property to recover the outstanding amount owned. The days of hounding defaulters will be over and banks will have to be more careful in extending mortgage loans. At the moment there is too much legal backing given to the banks. It should be at least 50/50.

    The four big banks will not stop acting like they have monopoly power until it is made clear to them that they cannot do whatever they want. The decision to deregulate the banking industry was one of the worse decisions made by the federal government “think tank” of the mid 1980s. Now we have had forty years of bad behaviour from the four main banks. In that time they have :terrorised those in mortgage stress; cancelled overdrafts at the first difficulty encountered by borrowers; held up the clearance of cheques to make profits on the transfer of funds from one bank to another; engage in hidden cartel arrangements over lending rates; used collusive trading deals to “enslave” borrowers; used bait and switch advertising on credit facilities; unfairly evicted property owners from homes and farms; sent small businesses into bankruptcy without offering alternative payment plans; facilitated criminal activities through blind trusts; imposed hidden fees and charges in loans; closed branches in small regional areas; forced older customers to use electronic banking despite their customer preferences; and cynically given public apologies that turn out to be empty promises of reform and redress.

    It’s staggering that even feeble minded politicians, almost everyone sitting in Parliament House in Canberra, has not woken up to the fact that they are being played by the banks. The old test of

          “Who benefits?”

    is never used to examine the actions of banks. If it smells like greed and looks like greed then it is almost certainly is greed.

    Time to reign in the banks. But then when has any federal politician ever committed a timely act. You get what you vote for in a democracy.

Leave a comment