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 September 1, 2026
At the Federal Budget in May 2026, the Government announced that it would reintroduce a loss carry back tax offset for companies, providing a crucial buffer to any business facing difficult trading conditions.
By Clarke McEwan August 30, 2026
Tax Time 2026 is in full swing, and with that comes a decision for anyone who uses their car for work purposes: is it better to claim a deduction using the logbook or cents per kilometre method? When can I claim car expenses? Broadly, tax deductions for car expenses (i.e. the costs you incur to own and operate a car) are available where you use your car for work-related trips, such as for travel between workplaces or to perform your work duties. The exception is ordinary commuting to and from work - such expenses cannot typically be claimed, as they’re considered private expenses. Cents per kilometre method The cents per kilometre method allows you to claim a fixed rate for each work-related kilometre you travel, up to a maximum of 5,000 km each year. This fixed rate per km covers all of your car expenses for a year, including decline in value, registration and insurance, maintenance, repairs and fuel costs. For the 2025-26 tax year, the rate of deduction is 88 cents per kilometre, which means this tax time, the maximum potential amount of deduction is $4,400. (And keep in mind that the rate of deduction has been increased to 91 cents per km as of 1 July 2026, meaning a total potential deduction of $4,550 in the 2026-27 tax year). One of the benefits of using the cents per kilometre method is that it’s relatively simple, as you don’t need to keep receipts for your fuel or car expenses. However, you do need to keep records to show how you’ve calculated your work-related kilometres (for example, a diary), and you also need to be able to show that you own the car you’re using for work. Logbook method If you have a lot of work-related car expenses and have the time, you might find that the logbook method gives you the best deduction. The logbook method allows you to claim the work-related portion of your actual car expenses. This means that you can claim for a percentage of the actual expenses incurred on running costs such as fuel, electricity, servicing, registration, insurance and the decline in value, provided you’ve used the car in the course of your work. However, as the potential deductions under the logbook method are higher, there are stricter record-keeping requirements to meet. This includes keeping a logbook, which allows the calculation of how much you can claim back, it must: - cover at least 12 continuous weeks and be broadly representative of your travel, - include the reason and purpose, as well as the destination of every work-related journey, - the odometer reading at the start and end of each journey, - and the total kilometres travelled on the journey, - include odometer readings for the start and end of the logbook period and the total kilometres travelled during that period. Each journey in your logbook must be made at the end of the journey or as soon as possible afterwards. If you don't have a valid logbook, then unfortunately you cannot use the logbook method to claim car expenses, although the cents per km method may be available instead. Which is better? The answer to whether you should choose the logbook or cents per km method is very dependent on your personal situation. If you have light work-related car use and don’t love keeping extensive records, the cents per km method may be better suited to your needs, while those who use their car for work frequently may receive a higher deduction under the logbook method. If you’re unsure which method is best for you, speak to a member of our team today.
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
By Clarke McEwan August 19, 2026
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
By Clarke McEwan August 17, 2026
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care.
By Clarke McEwan August 11, 2026
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care. Strong financial management is essential for maintaining profitability, supporting growth, meeting compliance obligations, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the practice.
By Clarke McEwan August 10, 2026
To ensure passage of the negative gearing and CGT discount changes that were announced in the May 2026 Federal Budget the Government agreed to make amendments to the SMSF borrowing rules. SMSFs are able to borrow in restricted circumstances which includes borrowing under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase a single acquirable asset. While there have previously been no specific legislative restrictions on the type of asset a SMSF can borrow to purchase, most commonly we see LRBAs being used to purchase property. Up until this point, this could have been any type of real property. These amendments will mean that when SMSF trustees wish to borrow to purchase a property, it must meet the business real property (BRP) definition. This BRP definition relates to usage of the property rather than zoning or what the property was originally built for. This change became law on 26 June 2026, but the Bill includes a 45 day transitional period which will finish on 10 August 2026. This transitional period may allow for arrangements that are currently being implemented on non-BRP assets to be allowable under the new rules where settlement occurs after 10 August 2026, provided the arrangement to purchase the property was entered into on or before 10 August 2026. We recommend that SMSF trustees who are currently implementing LRBA arrangements on non-BRP assets seek specialist SMSF legal advice to ensure their arrangements meet these transitional rules. While this change has been referred to in the media as a ban on super funds borrowing to purchase residential property, the use of the BRP definition makes the change slightly more complex than this. As this definition relates to usage of the property, it is possible that some residentially designed properties could meet the BRP definition (for example, a medical practice that operates from a residentially designed terrace dwelling). The BRP definition also requires that the property is wholly and exclusively used for business purposes. This could mean that some properties that may initially appear to be commercial in nature may not meet the BRP definition (for example, a mixed use residential and retail property on a single title). We recommend that SMSF trustees entering into new LRBAs seek advice from specialist legal and financial advisers to ensure the new requirements are met. Existing arrangements The updated rules allow for existing LRBAs over non-BRP assets to continue. They also allow for existing arrangements to be refinanced, subject to lender availability and approval. For any further information please contact our office.
More Posts