News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 People's bank needed, economists say 

People's bank needed, economists say

08 Jul, 2009 01:50 PM
THE growing power of the Big Four banks has been targeted by a coalition of six influential economists, who have petitioned the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to set up an inquiry into Australia's financial system.

They have suggested the Government set up a "basic bank" so Australians can deposit money with Australia Post and have it managed by the Future Fund.

The so-called people's bank would be similar to New Zealand's successful Kiwibank, which was set up to break the dominance of the Australian-owned majors.

Since the financial crisis began the Big Four have increased their share of the mortgage market from 80 per cent to 92 per cent and taken over non-bank lenders such as RAMS and second-order banks including St George and BankWest.

The open letter (see separate story) expresses concern at how the banks are using their privileged access to government guarantees, saying they are "rushing offshore" to expand even though Australians are "repeatedly told that our banks were lucky not to have had substantial overseas exposures".

The banks have been under fire for failing to pass on to mortgage holders the full cuts made by the Reserve Bank. Yesterday the Reserve left its official cash rate unchanged at 3 per cent.

The open letter is signed by economists who have advised both sides of politics, including Christopher Joye, chairman of the former prime minister John Howard's 2003 Home Ownership Task Force, and Nicholas Gruen, chairman of the Government 2.0 Task Force for the Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner.

The letter was delivered to the office of the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, late yesterday, and gained support from the ACTU president, Sharan Burrow, and the shadow treasurer, Joe Hockey.

But a spokesman for Mr Swan appeared to reject it, saying Australia's financial system had performed "very well" during the crisis compared with others and the Government was "not contemplating" a systemic review.

Dr Joye, who runs the research and investment firm Rismark, said Mr Swan's response was an example of the complacency the open letter warned against.

"Everybody knows that providence has played a part in Australia's ability to skate through this crisis. When a coalition of top academic economists calls for a review to evaluate improvements to Australia's decades-old regulatory system, politicians should listen," he said.

The letter says Australia would "do well not to discount the possibility that a roll of the dice left us without more significant system failures" and adds that "in future, we may not be so lucky".

It was also signed by Joshua Gans, a professor at Melbourne Business School, Stephen King, a Monash University professor and former ACCC commissioner, John Quiggin, a professor at Queensland University, and Sam Wylie, a management consultant.

The letter refers to two inquiries into Australia's financial system - the Wallis inquiry of 1997 and the Campbell inquiry of 1981 - and says much of what they brought in is now out of date. It says a new inquiry would examine whether the banks should pay a "systemic capital charge" to account for risks in their business and whether they should have to accumulate capital in good times.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Ever since they sold the Commonwealth Bank, I knew that some day, it would be regretted. It seems that now it is being recognised that we need the services of a Govt owned people's bank that would slow down the arrogance of the commercial banks and give the ordinary bloke in the street a fair go.
Posted by Trugger, 8/07/2009 4:31:55 PM
A couple of years back the "competition" in the market came from discount lenders, and easier "Lo Doc" loans, were spoken highly of. Now most of those are no longer in the market as their structure lacked either profit or had unreliable funding.

Australian banks need to have a certain level of capital. Low/no profits means they can lend less. It also means they will struggle to raise money to lend.

Make a realistic choice, Australians. Profitable banks that are able to lend, or capital constrained banks that are more limited than they are now, or even worse, pull out of the market or are broke.

You can't have it both ways.

Posted by Alternative View, 9/07/2009 8:09:02 AM
I don't have a problem with the banks being profitable - more power to them. I do have a problem with the banks crying foul and claiming they can't pass on full rate cuts when they continue to yield record profits.

I also have a serious problem with the amount of bank fees that Australians are forced to pay - for example, you are charged a couple of dollars on a transaction that costs the bank a few cents and don't get me started on the exhorbitant fees they charge just to have a credit card.

I really don't understand the Government's decision last year to allow banks to impose a fee when people withdraw money at another bank's ATM - because I mean that is just what Australian banks need - to be legally permitted to charge people even more to access their money.

Posted by problem, 9/07/2009 9:47:43 AM
Why is it that we are expected to prop up the banks when they made the decisions to source increase funding overseas?

At the time they beat their chests and bragged about how much extra profit and strength it gave them - now it Has swung around to bite them on the butt, we are expected to the assist them to maintain these elevated profit levels, so they can take over their local competition and regain increased market share/strength.

I think they are having their cake and eating it as well. 'Alternative View', they can't have it both ways. Bring on increased competition from a 'People's Bank' as it is only good for the consumer. Look what has happen to fert prices now a bit more competition has arrived.

Posted by The orchardist, 9/07/2009 11:36:09 AM
For decades, we have been customers of small banks. Each time they get taken over by a big bank, we move to another small bank.

Most recently, we have been with St George specifically because we didn't want ro be with one of the big banks. Now St George has been taken over by Westpac.

The very notion of choice is a joke.

Posted by Bonnie, 9/07/2009 3:46:30 PM
Re, 'Alternative Views' comments. Yes, we need profitable banks, ones that won't fall over in the first ill wind. What we don't want are high fees for little or no service.

Regardless of the pious spin that the banks put out, the average person is not looked after very well with their day-to-day accounts. Fees on top of fees, lack of service, lack of the good old human smiling face, fees to both parties for a dishonored cheque, overcharging by excessive amounts on real costs for various services.

Do you understand these things the mere mortals of Australia have to put up with? This is why we need a bank owned by the nation and not by corporate chieftians whose only interest appears to be in their salaries and the shareholder dividends.

Posted by Trugger, 9/07/2009 8:05:03 PM
Of course the notion of choice is very limited as each larger operation absorbs it's competitor-there is no real competition as the large banks make up nothing more than a cartel.

Bonnie, have you tried the more independent operations, such as Bendigo Bank at all? At least in general they are more community based, although from what I had heard recently there was another bank sniffing around and suggesting a possible merger, but I think it was only a smaller one - perhaps Adelaide Bank (though don't quote me).

Regarding the comment of "profitable banks" - isn't anyone concerned there seems to be little tangible wealth to back up all this credit being lent to hapless consumers?

Posted by Andrew Phillips, 9/07/2009 9:12:07 PM
These are probably some of the same "economists" who were advocating the Commonwealth Bank be sold, to increase competition.

Now they, and the economic rationalists in Canberra, have been proved wrong, again. Of course, we need a people's bank. That's most of the reason the Commonwealth was set up, to protect us from the international mega banks..

Posted by bill, 10/07/2009 8:37:36 AM
This call comes a bit late. We not so very long ago had a string of "people's banks", one in each state and the Commonwealth Bank. ALP governments bankrupted those of Victoria, SA and WA. Keating sold off the Commonwealth Bank.
Posted by Ted O'Brien., 13/07/2009 6:35:38 PM
If I recall correctly, the State Bank board was full of "ALP mates" all living the high life with no accountability for their decisions. Even after the enquiry, Labor did all they could to protect their buddies... So, what is the issue here? Is it "people's banks" or is it commercial and political "corruption and nepotism"?
Posted by Andrew Phillips, 14/07/2009 5:52:42 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
29 June, 2009
POLL
Q: Many federal politicians are overseas on trade missions and study tours, during Parliament's winter recess. Is the cost to taxpayers justified?

Yes, the trips are worthwhile.
(26.7%)

No, they're not justified.
(73.3%)

Total Votes: 435
Poll Date: 06 July, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...