Sunshine Coast and Brisbane Accountants - Clarke McEwan Accountants and Business Advisorrs
Sunshine Coast and Brisbane Accountants - Clarke McEwan Accountants and Business Advisorrs

Banks still worthy of a place in most portfolios

Clarke McEwan Accountants

Australian banks still worthy of a place in most portfolios… despite what some commentators say

Barring disasters, the banks should produce returns of the order of 10% per annum over the next decade. With a yield of 8% including franking credits, we need just 2% per annum growth to get us to a 10% per annum total return. Even if we get no growth in earnings, an 8% per annum return means that banks will be worth a place in most portfolios - barring disasters.

Disasters? What could possibly go wrong?

Anyone who follows the mainstream investment media will have no problem making some suggestions here. Ever increasing capital requirements, curbs on lending growth, new taxes, fines, Royal Commissions and other government interventions have been widely discussed. In addition, some outright disasters have been suggested, with a collapse in the residential property market the most common. And, of course, there is the possibility of an old fashioned, severe recession which inevitably would bring more pain for the banks.

Some of these scenarios are likely and should be factored into any forecast. Others may be unlikely but still are risks that we need to consider. Here, we want to put those risks in perspective particularly those that have been widely covered in the mainstream investment media and where we believe the impacts have been vastly overstated.

Increased regulatory and capital requirements

These are real and are happening right now and, accordingly, are in our base forecast. Most banks have around 10% of capital for each dollar of risk weighted assets – that should head towards 11% over time. This makes the banks safer but slightly less profitable. In addition, we have the bank levy which should slice around 2.5% off bank profits. Furthermore, we have threats of Royal Commissions, fines for bad behaviour, and so on. Collectively, we think these will reduce Earnings Per Share by about 10% over time. This slices just 1% per annum off returns over the next ten years. We include this impact in our forecast.

A slowdown in the growth of residential lending

We think this is highly likely and it is why we forecast future earnings growth at around 2% per annum. This is much lower than historical earnings growth and, in fact, this forecast is much lower than most other analysts' forecasts. And still it gets us to a 10% per annum return.

A recession is likely in the next decade and will hurt the banks

Our forecasts assume that Australia will experience a recession in the next decade. We also predict that, when the recession comes, the market will know about it before we do – and so the chances of getting out early will be small. Hence, the key question is how bad a recession might be, both in terms of depth and also in terms of how well prepared the banks are for that recession.

The depth of a recession is often depends upon the health of the banks to that recession. The more extended the banks, the more they cut lending, the more they harass existing borrowers, and the more they drive the economy into the ground. When banks enter a recession in better shape, the recession is generally milder. We saw that during the GFC where the Australian downturn was much milder than in other parts of the world because, at least in part, the Australian banks entered the recession in reasonable shape.

A 2015 RBA study found that the key drivers of bank lending losses during recessions were: rapid credit growth; high levels of building construction activity; falling bank lending standards; and, rising interest rates.

Today, we have modest levels of lending growth, normal levels of commercial building construction, tightening lending standards and no sign of a central bank with any interest in raising interest rates. Of those four loss drivers, the only one flashing a warning light right now is the high level of residential construction activity. Even there, the banks are scaling back their involvement and watching their risks very closely. In short, the banks are in good shape generally and in much better shape than prior to the GFC. This suggests that any recession in the next decade should be relatively mild so long as these indicators remain strong. If they turn south, caution will be required.

Our forecast assumes that a mild recession will occur and will result in a one-off reduction in profits of around a third and take around 0.5% per annum off 10-year returns.

Even mild recessions will cause short-term volatility

But before we get too comfortable, we should not forget that during a recession, bank share prices will probably fall by 50% or more. But the fall is unlikely to be permanent.

While this may seem dramatic, we would say the same thing about every other sector of the share market. All equities are volatile. All can fall dramatically during recessions. The banks are no different. As long-term investors, we should worry predominantly about a permanent loss of capital.

And that is a possibility if the recession is severe. Accordingly, no matter how attractive the prospects of Australian banks, all the normal rules of diversification still apply.

Impact of a collapse in the housing market

Now, this is where things hot up. The market is divided on this issue. There are those who consider that a collapse in housing prices and as a result, the banks, is almost certain; there are those who aren't sure; and, there are those who are extremely sceptical that we will see a housing induced collapse in the banks at all.

Farrelly's considers a collapse in housing prices as possible but unlikely:

  • We still seem to have a shortage of housing that not even the residential building boom is meeting;
  • Bank lending practices are being tightened but not sufficiently to cause an out-and-out collapse.

Nonetheless, it would be foolish to say that a collapse in housing prices couldn't happen. Accordingly, we consider the impact of an extreme example - a 35% fall in the prices of houses nationwide and an accompanying recession that sees soaring unemployment and a 10% default rate amongst mortgagees.

Helpfully, the major banks produce detailed reports showing the Loan to Valuation Ratios (LVRs) of their mortgage lending books. This is all we need to do our own stress test. Consider two loans, one has a LVR of 50% (in other words, $50 worth of loan for every $100 worth of house), while the other has an LVR of 90% ($90 worth of loan for every $100 worth of house.) Now assume that property prices fell by 35%.

Post the fall, the first loan now has $50 worth of loan for $65 worth of house, while the second has $90 of loan for every $65 worth of house. If the first borrower loses their job and can't repay the loan, the bank has the option of putting the property on the market, recouping their $50 loan and sending whatever is left back to the unfortunate borrower.

The second borrower would be a problem for the bank. Here, a default potentially costs the bank a loss of $25 for every $90 of loan.

Now let's assume that 10% of all mortgages default. The results for the major banks are shown in Figure 1 on the following page.

Figure 1: Bank stress test (35% downturn in property prices & 10% default rate)

ANZ

CBA

NAB

WBC

Size of loan book ($ bill)

274

436

285

414

Loss as a % of loan book if 10% default

-0.5%

-0.6%

-0.6%

-0.4%

Loss In $mill

-1,479

-2,660

-1,807

-1,482

Loss as a % of 2017 pre-tax profits

-15%

-19%

-19%

-13%

Pre-tax profits 2017 ($mill)

9,704

14,114

9,306

11,050

Source: Bank reports, farrelly's analysis

That's right. A perfect storm of a 35% fall in residential property prices and a 10% default rate would result in the banks' profits falling by about 17% on average. While this is clearly not a great result, it falls a long way short of a disaster.

In a year or two, profits would rebound and normal business would resume. Farrelly's calculations suggest that the whole episode would reduce 10-year average returns by around just 0.5% per annum.

Now, a much more likely scenario is that if residential property prices do fall that it will be more like a fall of around 20% (rather than 35%). This causes a one-off reduction in profits of closer to 4%. It's a blip.

Residential property lending makes the banks safer, not riskier

The bottom line is this: residential property lending is actually an extremely profitable and safe activity for the banks. The fact that the Australian banks' lending books are highly concentrated in home loan lending should be a source of comfort rather than concern. It's the equivalent of having 70% of a portfolio invested in government bonds – the concentration, in this instance, makes the portfolio safer, not riskier.

Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Any advice in this document is general advice only and does not take into account the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular person. You should obtain financial advice relevant to your circumstances before making investment decisions. Where a particular financial product is mentioned you should consider the Product Disclosure Statement before making any decisions in relation to the product. Whilst every care has been taken in the preparation of this information, Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd does not guarantee any particular outcome or future performance. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd is a registered tax (financial) adviser. Any views expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd. If you intend to rely on any tax advice in this document you should seek advice from a tax professional. Australian Unity Personal Financial Services Ltd ABN 26 098 725 145, AFSL & Australian Credit Licence No. 234459, 114 Albert Road, South Melbourne, VIC 3205. This document produced in October 2017. © Copyright 2017

By Clarke McEwan February 17, 2025
“Succession planning, and the tax risks associated with it, is our number one focus in 2025. In recent years we’ve observed an increase in reorganisations that appear to be connected to succession planning.” ATO Private Wealth Deputy Commissioner Louise Clarke The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) thinks that wealthy babyboomer Australians, particularly those with successful family-controlled businesses, are planning and structuring to dispose of assets in a way in which the tax outcomes might not be in accord with the ATO’s expectations. If you are within the ATO’s Top 500 (Australia's largest and wealthiest private groups) or Next 5,000 (Australian residents who, together with their associates, control a net wealth of over $50 million) programs, expect the ATO to be paying close attention to how money flows through the entities you control. A critical issue for many business owners is how to effectively (and compliantly) benefit from a successful business. In many cases, the owners have spent years building the business and the business has become not only a substantial asset, but a lucrative source of income either through salary and wages, dividends, or through the sale of shares or assets. Generally, under tax law, you can legitimately structure assets if there is a good reason to do so - like for asset protection, but if you tip across the line and the only viable reason for a structure is to reduce tax, then you risk the ATO taking a very close look at your operations or worse, denying any tax benefits under the general anti-avoidance rules in Part IVA of the tax rules, designed to combat “blatant, artificial or contrived” tax avoidance activities. “We’re seeing that succession planning behaviour is primarily done by group heads who are approaching retirement. They typically own groups that family members are a part of, and wealth is transferred to the next generation to keep it within the family (via trusts and other means),” ATO Private Wealth Deputy Commissioner Louise Clarke said in a recent update. Key areas of concern include:  Division 7A loans being settled. That is, a company has been paying money to a shareholder or an associate under a loan account. The ‘loan’ is quickly settled, often via a distribution, to remove it from the accounts. Assets moving around the group (often the true value of an asset is not recognised raising the question, why the change if not to avoid capital gains tax on disposal or for some other benefit). Family member interests being restructured . Trust deeds being amended. A restructure is cited as a reason for late lodgment. Use of trusts Trusts are also a key area of concern in 2025. Where a trust which has made a family trust election (FTE) or interposed entity election (IEE) makes a distribution outside of the family group, a 47% Family Trust Distribution Tax applies (tax at the top marginal tax rate plus Medicare). In addition, the ATO has recently tightened its approach to trust tax returns for closely held trusts to ensure that trustee beneficiary (TB) statements are being completed. These are required when a trust makes a distribution of income or assets to the trustee of another trust, unless an exclusion applies. For example, a trust which has made an FTE or IEE doesn’t need to make a TB statement. The TB statement will then be used to cross reference against what the beneficiary has declared in its tax return. Where a valid TB statement is not made on time this can trigger a hefty 47% Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax. Reducing risk Where you or your family have control over multiple entities, particularly where the value of these entities is significant, it is important that the connections between these - be it in Australia or overseas - are looked at closely to avoid any nasty surprises or lost opportunities. Transferring control of your business may involve restructuring your business operations – changes to share structures, changes to the trustee and appointor of a trust, changes to partnership structures – or transferring assets to family members via the creation of trusts or other entities. All these events have legal and tax implications that need to be carefully considered. Contact us to assist you with your succession and tax planning.
By Clarke McEwan February 17, 2025
If credit card surcharges are banned in other countries, why not Australia? We look at the surcharge debate and the payment system complexity that has brought us to this point. In the United Kingdom, consumer credit and debit card surcharges have been banned since 2018. In Europe, all except American Express and Diners Club consumer surcharges are banned. And in Australia, there is a push to follow suit. But, is the issue as simple as it seems? The push for change The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) launched a review in October 2024 of Merchant Card Payment Costs and Surcharging. The review explores whether existing regulatory frameworks are still fit for purpose given the rate of technological change and complexity, and if there is a need for greater transparency – surcharges, transaction fees, and the way in which payments are regulated, are all up for review. Ultimately, the review is about reducing costs to merchants and consumers. In general, customers dislike surcharges and would be happy to see them go – they represent a personal loss of value in much the same way a discount is seen as a personal gain. And, they have support for a ban from the large credit card providers and financial institutions with the Australian Banking Association’s (ABA) submission to the RBA review saying, “The current surcharging framework is clearly not working and requires targeted reform. Consumers should never be surcharged for bundled costs like POS systems, business software products or other business incentives.” The reference to “business incentives” is where a higher fee is charged by the payment service provider to provide the merchant with reward points and other incentives. The push for a ban accelerated when the government announced that it would ban debit card surcharges from 1 January 2026, subject to the outcome of the RBA review later this year. If surcharges are banned for some or all payment methods, businesses currently charging surcharges will need to either absorb the cost of merchant fees or increase prices. The issue for many businesses is not whether to charge a fee, but the costs of accepting what is now the most common payment method – cash is free to transact, cards are a facility to transact legal tender, not legal tender in and of themselves. Small business pays 3 times more While the average card payment fee in Australia is lower than the United States (which is close to double Australia’s rates), we pay a higher rate than in some other jurisdictions such as Europe. The RBA have flagged there might be room to improve this by capping interchange fees and/or introducing competition into how debit card payments are routed (allowing systems to default to the ‘least cost’ option available). In Australia, it is not a level playing field when it comes to card transaction fees with a large disparity between fees paid by small and large merchants – small merchants pay around three times the average per transaction fee than larger merchants (large merchants are able to secure wholesale fees or utilise ‘strategic’ interchange rates). But even within the small business sector, fees vary dramatically with the cost of accepting card payments ranging from less than 1% to well over 2% of the transaction value. How we use cards and digital transactions The RBA are generally in favour of allowing surcharges, pointing out that they signal to consumers which payment methods offer better value and enable market forces to determine the dominant payment providers. And, this might be true for large purchases, but do we really notice when we’re tapping our phones or watches to grab that morning coffee? Cards (including debit, prepaid, credit and charge cards) are the most frequently used payment method in Australia, accounting for three-quarters of all consumer payments in 2022. According to the Australian Banking Association: Contactless payments now account for 95% of in-person card transactions, compared to less than 8% in 2010. Online payments, as a share of retail payments, have grown from 7% in 2010 to 18% in 2022. Mobile wallet (Apple Pay, Google Pay, etc.,) usage has grown from 1% of point-of-sale payments in 2016 to 44% in October 2024. Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) services, virtually unknown 8 years ago, are now used by nearly a third of Australians. When are surcharges allowed In the days before the RBA’s surcharge standard, it was not uncommon for businesses to apply a flat 3% surcharge. The surcharge rules enable merchants to surcharge consumers for the “reasonable cost of accepting card payments”. This means: A business can only charge a surcharge for paying by card/digital wallet, but the surcharge must not be more than what it costs the business to use that payment type . These costs, measured over a 12 month period, can include gateway costs, terminal costs paid to a provider, and fraud prevention etc., if they relate directly to the card type being surcharged. Payment suppliers must provide merchants with a statement at least every 12 months that includes the business’s average percentage cost of accepting each payment type. If a business charges a payment surcharge, it must be able to justify how the surcharge fee was calculated. If the surcharge applies to all payment types regardless of type, it must not be more than the lowest surcharge set for a single payment type. If there is no way for a customer to pay without incurring a surcharge, the business must include the surcharge in the displayed price. That is, if your customer cannot use cash or another payment method that does not incur a surcharge, then the price displayed must include the surcharge.  The RBA estimates that, on average, card fees cost: Card type Eftpos less than 0.5% Visa and Mastercard debit between 0.5% and 1% Visa and Mastercard credit between 1% and 1.5%. Source: RBA Excessive surcharging is banned on eftpos, Debit Mastercard, Mastercard Credit, Visa Debit and Visa Credit. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) reportedly stated that excessive surcharge complaints increased to close to 2,500 in the 18 months from the start of 2023. Tax on surcharges If your business charges goods and services tax (GST) on goods or services, then GST should also apply to any surcharge payments made.
Is there a problem paying your super when you die?
By Clarke McEwan February 17, 2025
The Government has announced its intention to introduce mandatory standards for large superannuation funds to, amongst other things, deliver timely and compassionate handling of death benefits. Do we have a problem with paying out super when a member dies? The value of superannuation in Australia is now around $4.1 trillion. When you die, your super does not automatically form part of your estate but instead, is paid to your eligible beneficiaries by the fund trustee according to the fund rules, superannuation law, and any death benefit nomination you made. Complaints to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) about the handling of death benefits surged sevenfold between 2021 and 2023. The critical issue was delays in payments. While most super death benefits are paid within 3 months, for others it can take well over a year. The super laws do not specify a time period only that super needs to be paid to beneficiaries “as soon as practicable” after the death of the member.  How to make sure your super goes to the right place Death benefits are a complex area. The superannuation fund trustee has discretion over who gets your super benefits unless you have made a valid death nomination. If you don’t make a decision, or let your nomination lapse, then the fund has the discretion to pay your super to any of your dependents or your estate. There are four types of death nominations: 1. Binding death benefit nomination Directs your super to your nominated eligible beneficiary, the trustee is bound by law to pay your super to that person as soon as practicable after your death. Generally, death benefit nominations lapse after 3 years unless it is a non-lapsing binding death nomination. 2 . Non-lapsing binding death benefit nomination If permitted by your trust deed, a non-lapsing binding death benefit nomination will remain in place unless you cancel or replace it. When you die, your super is directed to the person you nominate. 3. Non-binding death nomination A guide for trustees as to who should receive your super when you die but the trustee retains control over who the benefits are paid to. This might be the person you nominate but the trustees can use their discretion to pay your super to someone else or to your estate. 4. Reversionary beneficiary If you are taking an income stream from your superannuation at the time of your death (pension), the payments can revert to your nominated beneficiary at the time of your death and the pension will be automatically paid to that person. Only certain dependents can receive reversionary pensions, generally a spouse or child under 18 years. Who is eligible to receive your super? Your super can be paid to a dependent, your legal representative (for example, the executor of your will), or someone who has an interdependency relationship with you. A dependent for superannuation purposes is “the spouse of the person, any child of the person and any person with whom the person has an interdependency relationship”. An interdependency relationship is where someone depends on you for financial support or care. What happens if I don’t make a nomination? If you have not made a death benefit nomination, the trustees will decide who to pay your superannuation to according to state or territory laws. This will be a superannuation dependent or the legal representative of your estate to then be distributed according to your Will. Where it can go wrong There have been a number of court cases over the years that have successfully contested the validity of death nominations. For a death nomination to be valid it must be in writing, signed and dated by you, and witnessed. The wording of your nomination also needs to be clear and legally binding. If you nominate a person, ensure you use their legal name. If your super is to be directed to your estate, ensure the wording uses the correct legal terminology. One of the reasons for delays in paying death benefit nominations cited by the funds is where there is no nomination (or it is expired or invalid), there are multiple potential claimants, and the trustee needs to work through sometimes complex family scenarios. The bottom line is, young or old, check your nominations with your superannuation fund and make sure you have the right type of nomination in place, and it is valid and correct. While there still might be a delay in getting your super where it needs to go if you die, the process will be a lot quicker and less onerous for your loved ones.
By Clarke McEwan February 17, 2025
The amount of money that can be transferred to a tax-free retirement account will increase to $2m on 1 July 2025. The transfer balance cap - the amount that can be transferred to a tax-free retirement account – is indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) released each December. If inflation goes up, the general transfer balance cap (TBC) is indexed in increments of $100,000 at the start of the financial year. In December 2024, the inflation rate triggered an increase in the cap from $1.9m to $2m. Everyone has an individual transfer balance cap. If you have started a retirement income stream, when indexation occurs, any increase only applies to your unused transfer balance cap. If you are considering retiring, either fully or partially, indexation of the transfer balance cap provides a one-off opportunity to increase the amount of money you can transfer to your tax-free retirement account. That is, if you start taking a retirement income stream for the first time in June 2025, your transfer balance cap will be $1.9m but if you wait until July 2025 your transfer balance cap will be $2m, an extra $100,000 tax-free. If you are already taking a retirement income stream, indexation applies to your unused TBC - so, you might not benefit from the full $100,000 increase on 1 July 2025. Where can I see what my cap is? Your superannuation fund reports the value of your superannuation interests to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). You can view your personal transfer balance cap, available cap space, and transfer balance account transactions online through the ATO link in myGov .
Inspirational podcasts for your business
By Clarke McEwan January 30, 2025
Podcasts are the new radio but for many business owners, there are often not enough hours in the day. Here are 9 to educate, entertain and inspire your next business move. #smallbusiness #podcasts #businessaccountants #sunshinecoastbusiness #brisbanebusiness
Selling your business: what happens once you exit?
By Clarke McEwan January 27, 2025
You’ve sold your business! But what happens now!? We’ve outlined five potential pathways your post-sale life could take, and how they help you find new goals and lifestyles. #exitstrategy #sellingup #businesstips #brisbanebusiness #sunshinecoastbusiness #brisbane #sunshinecoast #maroochydoreaccountants #brisbaneaccountants
More Posts
Share by: