Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in September indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising at a strong rate. Job gains have been strong, on average, in recent months, and the unemployment rate has declined. Household spending has continued to grow strongly, while growth of business fixed investment has moderated from its rapid pace earlier in the year. On a 12-month basis, both overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy remain near 2 percent. Indicators of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.
There was no mention of the deterioration in data with policymakers describing household spending growth as strong even though core retail sales stagnated in September. This unambiguously positive outlook is a signal of the central bank’s commitment to raising interest rates. There’s no doubt that the Fed will hike in December, especially if stocks maintain their current recovery.
The T10 Bond Rate went higher.
Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects that further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate will be consistent with sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term. Risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced.
In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 2 to 2-1/4 percent.
In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its maximum employment objective and its symmetric 2 percent inflation objective. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments.
The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has kept the Official Cash Rate (OCR) at 1.75 percent. They expect to keep the OCR at this level through 2019 and into 2020. Their latest statement on monetary policy was released.
There are both upside and downside risks to our growth and inflation projections. As always, the timing and direction of any future OCR move remains data dependent.
The pick-up in GDP growth in the June quarter was partly due to temporary factors, and business surveys continue to suggest growth will be soft in the near term. Employment is around its maximum sustainable level. However, core consumer price inflation remains below our 2 percent target mid-point, necessitating continued supportive monetary policy.
GDP growth is expected to pick up over 2019. Monetary stimulus and population growth underpin household spending and business investment. Government spending on infrastructure and housing also supports domestic demand. The level of the New Zealand dollar exchange rate will support export earnings.
As capacity pressures build, core consumer price inflation is expected to rise to around the mid-point of our target range at 2 percent.
Downside risks to the growth outlook remain. Weak business sentiment could weigh on growth for longer. Trade tensions remain in some major economies, raising the risk that trade barriers increase and undermine global growth.
Upside risks to the inflation outlook also exist. Higher fuel prices are boosting near-term headline inflation. We will look through this volatility as appropriate. Our projection assumes firms have limited pass through of higher costs into generalised consumer prices, and that longer-term inflation expectations remain anchored at our target.
We will keep the OCR at an expansionary level for a considerable period to contribute to maximising sustainable employment, and maintaining low and stable inflation.
It shows that currently major Australian banks are at the lower end of Total Capital compared with international peers. As a result of proposed changes, major banks (Domestic systemically important banks in Australia, D-SIBs) will see their funding costs rise – incrementally over four years – by up to five basis points based on current pricing. This is intended to build in more financial resilience by lifting the capital requirements, centred on tier 2. Other banks may also be impacted to an extent.
If the D-SIBs were to maintain an additional four to five percentage points of Total Capital they would have ratios more in line with their international peers. But not in the top 25%, and the banks overseas are also lifting capital higher… so some tail chasing here! Is this “unquestionably strong”?
Under the proposals, each D-SIB would be required to maintain additional loss absorbency of between four and five percentage points of RWA. It is anticipated that each D-SIB’s Total Capital requirement would be adjusted by the same amount.
By way of background, the Australian Government’s 2014 Financial System Inquiry (FSI) recommended APRA implement a framework for loss absorbing and recapitalisation capacity in line with emerging international practice, sufficient to facilitate the orderly resolution of Australian ADIs and minimise taxpayer support (FSI Rec 3). The Government supported this recommendation in its response to the FSI.
APRA’s role is not to eliminate failure altogether, but to reduce its probability and impact. This role is set out in APRA’s statutory objectives under the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 and the Banking Act 1959, which require APRA to protect depositors and pursue financial system stability. In performing its functions, APRA will balance those objectives with the need for efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality in the financial system.
Disorderly failures are inconsistent with APRA’s objectives, as they are highly disruptive to depositors and have an adverse impact on financial system stability. Australia has not experienced a disorderly ADI failure in recent history, though the failure of HIH Insurance Limited (HIH) in 2001 provides an example of the adverse consequences of a disorderly failure of an APRA-regulated institution. In that instance, policyholders were severely affected and essential insurance services to the broader community became unavailable for a period of time.
Conversely, orderly resolution of an ADI would occur when a problem is identified and escalated early enough to allow APRA and other financial regulators to manage and respond in a manner that protects the interests of depositors, stabilises the ADI’s critical functions and promotes financial stability. Achieving an orderly resolution does not necessarily mean a crisis is averted, rather the manner in which an ADI’s failure is managed would result in better outcomes given the circumstances.
APRA’s statutory powers were recently strengthened by the passage of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Act 2018.
The effectiveness of resolution planning will be a focus for APRA over the coming years. APRA is in the process of developing a formalised framework for resolution planning and will consult further on this in 2019.
The proposals in this discussion paper focus on the availability of financial resources to support orderly resolution.
These proposals would ensure ADIs have adequate financial resources available to support orderly resolution in the highly unlikely event of failure. This will be achieved by adjusting, where appropriate, an ADI’s Total Capital requirement.
These proposals are distinct from APRA’s work on ensuring ADI capital levels are ‘unquestionably strong’, which relates to the ongoing resilience of institutions and is in response to a separate FSI recommendation (FSI Rec 1).
APRA is proposing an approach on loss-absorbing capacity that is simple, flexible and designed with the distinctive features of the Australian financial system in mind, and has been developed in collaboration with the other members of the Council of Financial Regulators. The key features of the proposals include:
for the four major banks – increasing Total Capital requirements by four to five percentage points of risk-weighted assets
for other ADIs – likely no adjustment, although a small number may be required to maintain additional Total Capital depending on the outcome of resolution planning, which would inform the appropriate amount of additional loss absorbency required to achieve orderly resolution. This assessment would occur on an institution-by-institution basis.
Tier 2 capital instruments are designed to convert to ordinary shares or be written off at the point of non-viability, which means they will be available to absorb losses and can be used to facilitate resolution actions. Tier 2 capital instruments have been a feature of ADI capital structures in various forms since being introduced as part of the 1988 Basel Accord. These instruments have been used as part of resolution actions in other jurisdictions, supporting orderly outcomes.
It is also important that holders of instruments which are intended to be converted or written off in resolution understand the distinctive risks of these investments. In the context of AT1 instruments, APRA has noted that it is inadvisable for investors to view such instruments as higher-yielding fixed-interest investments, without understanding the loss-absorbing role they play in a resolution.15 In the case of the Australian ADIs’ Tier 2 capital instruments, these are mostly issued to institutional investors, who are likely to understand the risks involved.
As ADIs will be able to use any form of capital to meet increased Total Capital requirements, APRA anticipates the bulk of additional capital raised will be in the form of Tier 2 capital. The proposed changes are expected to marginally increase each major bank’s cost of funding – incrementally over four years – by up to five basis points based on current pricing. This is not expected to have an immediate or material effect on lending rates.
APRA proposes that the increased requirements will take full effect from 2023, following relevant ADIs being notified of adjustments to Total Capital requirements from 2019.
In addition to the proposals outlined in this discussion paper, APRA intends to consult on a framework for recovery and resolution in 2019, which will include further details on resolution planning.
APRA Chairman Wayne Byres said one of APRA’s core functions as Australia’s prudential regulator is to plan for, and if required, execute the orderly resolution of the financial institutions it regulates.
“The resilience of the Australian banking system continues to improve, underpinned by the build-up of capital over the last decade.
“However, no matter how resilient financial institutions are, the possibility of failure cannot be entirely removed. Therefore, in addition to strengthening the resilience of the financial system, it is prudent to plan for the unlikely event of failure.
“The events of the global financial crisis demonstrated the impact that failures can have on the broader financial system and the subsequent social and economic consequences.
“The aim of these proposals and resolution planning more broadly is to ensure that the failure of a financial institutions can be resolved in an orderly fashion, which protects the interests of beneficiaries and minimises disruption to the financial system,” Mr Byres said.
We have completed our October 2018 mortgage stress analysis and today we discuss the results.
The latest RBA data on household debt to income to June reached a new high of 190.5. This high debt level helps to explain the fact that mortgage stress continues to rise. Having crossed the 1 million Rubicon last month, across Australia, more than 1,008,000 households are estimated to be now in mortgage stress (last month 1,003,000). This equates to 30.7% of owner occupied borrowing households.
In addition, more than 22,000 of these are in severe stress. We estimate that more than 61,000 households risk 30-day default in the next 12 months. We continue to see the impact of flat wages growth, rising living costs and higher real mortgage rates. Bank losses are likely to rise a little ahead.
Our analysis uses the DFA core market model which combines information from our 52,000 household surveys, public data from the RBA, ABS and APRA; and private data from lenders and aggregators. The data is current to the end of October 2018. We analyse household cash flow based on real incomes, outgoings and mortgage repayments, rather than using an arbitrary 30% of income.
Households are defined as “stressed” when net income (or cash flow) does not cover ongoing costs. They may or may not have access to other available assets, and some have paid ahead, but households in mild stress have little leeway in their cash flows, whereas those in severe stress are unable to meet repayments from current income. In both cases, households manage this deficit by cutting back on spending, putting more on credit cards and seeking to refinance, restructure or sell their home. Those in severe stress are more likely to be seeking hardship assistance and are often forced to sell.
This rise in stress, which has continued for the past 6 years, should be of no surprise at all. “Continued rises in living costs – notably child care, school fees and fuel – whilst real incomes continue to fall and underemployment is causing significant pain. Many are dipping into savings to support their finances.”
Indeed, the fact that significant numbers of households have had their potential borrowing power crimped by lending standards belatedly being tightened, and are therefore mortgage prisoners, is significant. More than 40% of those seeking to refinance are now having difficulty. This is strongly aligned to those who are registering as stressed. These are households urgently trying to reduce their monthly outgoings.
Probability of default extends our mortgage stress analysis by overlaying economic indicators such as employment, future wage growth and cpi changes. Our Core Market Model also examines the potential of portfolio risk of loss in basis point and value terms. Losses are likely to be higher among more affluent households, contrary to the popular belief that affluent households are well protected. This is shown in the segment analysis, with some more wealthy households up against it.
Regional analysis shows that NSW has 272,536 households in stress (276,132 last month), VIC 281,922 (276,926 last month), QLD 178,015 (176,528 last month) and WA has 132,827 (132,700 last month). The probability of default over the next 12 months rose, with around 11,630 in WA, around 11,300 in QLD, 15,200 in VIC and 16,200 in NSW. The largest financial losses relating to bank write-offs reside in NSW ($1.1 billion) from Owner Occupied borrowers) and VIC ($1.74 billion) from Owner Occupied Borrowers, though losses are likely to be highest in WA at 3.6 basis points, which equates to $1,096 million from Owner Occupied borrowers.
Turning to the post codes with the largest counts of households in stress, fifth was Melbourne suburb Berwick and Harkaway, 3806, with 5,267 households in stress and 143 risking default.
In fourth place is Toowoomba and the surrounding area, in Queensland, 4350, with 6,437 households in stress and 256 risking default.
Next in third place is Campbelltown in NSW, 2560, with 6,781 households in stress and 110 risking default.
In second place is Tapping and the surrounding areas in WA, 6065 with 7,409 in stress and 298 risking default
And in first place, the post code with the largest number of households in mortgage stress this month is the area around Chipping Norton and Liverpool, 2170, with 7,732 households in stress and 116 risking default.
As always, it’s worth saying that given flat incomes, and rising costs, and some mortgage rate rises, the pressure will continue, and falling home prices will make things worse. Many people do not keep a cash flow, so they do not know their financial position – drawing one up is the first step and ASIC has some excellent advice on their MoneySmart website. And the other point to make is, if you are in financial distress, you should talk to your lender, they do have an obligation to help in cases of hardship. The worst strategy is simply to ignore the issue and hope it will go away. But in my experience, this is unlikely.
We will update the data again next month.
You can request our media release. Note this will NOT automatically send you our research updates, for that register here.
[contact-form to=’mnorth@digitalfinanceanalytics.com’ subject=’Request The October 2018 Stress Release’][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email Me The October 2018 Media Release’ type=’radio’ required=’1′ options=’Yes Please’/][contact-field label=”Comment If You Like” type=”textarea”/][/contact-form]
Note that the detailed results from our surveys and analysis are made available to our paying clients.
The end of year analysis by KPMG has shown the need for the major Australian banks to become leaner and simpler to benefit customers, via InvestorDaily.
The KPMG 2018 financial year results analysis showed that in 2018 major banks cash profit after tax decreased by 5.5 per cent to $29.5 billion.
One element that caused loss was the increase in compliance and remediation costs as a result of a challenging and changing operating environment for the majors.
The report found that regulatory, compliance and customer remediation costs had increased the cost to income ratios across the majors from 43.1 per cent to 46.6 per cent.
KPMG predicted that banks would become leaner and simpler in the 2019 financial year as a response to these rise of costs.
KPMG Strategy banking partner Hessel Verbeek said banks needed to simplify their approach as complexity was keeping them from meeting expectations.
“The Australian banking industry is facing a confluence of factors, making simplification vital, but also complex. Without change, incumbent banks will struggle to meet shareholder, customer and regulatory expectations,” he said.
Mr Verbeek said simplifications would be different for each bank depending on its strategic objectives but all of them would have same overall goal.
“The target state for bank simplifications is a ‘connected enterprise’, which is entirely organised around customer needs and is omni-channel, but with a digital focus.
“The bank is streamlined from front-to-back, with every process putting the customer at the core,” he said.
Mr Verbeek gave five steps towards bank simplification:
Clarify the bank’s strategic focus and make clear choice around competitive positioning
Choose a director for the bank’s business architecture
Determine which activities are strategic and provide a competitive advantage, given the bank’s agreed focus in the first step
Assess the simplification options for the bank’s activities, in line with its strategic focus
Develop the simplification roadmap, taking into account various dependencies
Mr Verbeek said there were three potential journeys for banks to follow; one such journey was to operate a full-service bank with a focus on affluent customers and small business.
“The full-service bank in its simplification journey is likely to focus on extending existing centres of excellence, as well as transformation of existing capabilities,” he said.
Another option was for a mainstream bank to be value-focused bank with a focus on efficiency.
“A value-focused bank is more likely to develop-to-replace (including through a neobank) or adopt third-party solutions,” he said.
The final journey said Mr Verbeek would be for a major bank to reposition itself as an embedded finance institution.
“The embedded finance bank will open itself to an eco-system of partners and partnering will be a strategic activity. It is likely to replace rather than transform many of its banking modules,” he said.
Mr Verbeek said that banks needed to plan for simplification immediately as it required management and board focus to achieve.
“It starts with agreeing on the bank’s long-term strategic focus. This could be done concurrently with a maturity assessment of the bank’s existing activities,” he said.
The KPMG end of year analysis found that of the big four banks the worse performer was NAB who came last in the rankings on all but one measure and the top performer was CBA, followed by Westpac with ANZ close behind.
In the 2018 financial year CBA made over $9.2 million in cash profit after tax, while NAB made just over half of that with $5.7 million.
The report said it was clear that the royal commission and the APRA and AUSTRAC inquiries into CBA were felt by all the banks with various compliance and remediation costs all increasing.
The report said that, looking forward, competition was predicted to remain robust as non-bank players and challenger banks were entering the market.
However, business and corporate banking could not expect to pick up all the mortgage market slack and, as a result, total net interest income will be subdued.
The latest minutes from the RBA continues the steady-as-we-go story, once again and so the cash rate remains on hold.
At its meeting today, the Board decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50 per cent.
The global economic expansion is continuing. A number of advanced economies are growing at an above-trend rate and unemployment rates are low. Growth in China has slowed a little, with the authorities easing policy while continuing to pay close attention to the risks in the financial sector. Globally, inflation remains low, although it has increased due to both higher oil prices and some lift in wages growth. A further pick-up in inflation is expected given the tight labour markets and, in the United States, the sizeable fiscal stimulus. One ongoing uncertainty regarding the global outlook stems from the direction of international trade policy in the United States.
Financial conditions in the advanced economies remain expansionary but have tightened somewhat recently. Equity prices have declined and yields on government bonds in some economies have increased, although they remain low. There has also been a broad-based appreciation of the US dollar this year. In Australia, money-market interest rates have declined recently, after increasing earlier in the year. Standard variable mortgage rates are a little higher than a few months ago and the rates charged to new borrowers for housing are generally lower than for outstanding loans.
The Australian economy is performing well. Over the past year, GDP increased by 3.4 per cent and the unemployment rate declined to 5 per cent, the lowest in six years. The forecasts for economic growth in 2018 and 2019 have been revised up a little. The central scenario is for GDP growth to average around 3½ per cent over these two years, before slowing in 2020 due to slower growth in exports of resources. Business conditions are positive and non-mining business investment is expected to increase. Higher levels of public infrastructure investment are also supporting the economy, as is growth in resource exports. One continuing source of uncertainty is the outlook for household consumption. Growth in household income remains low, debt levels are high and some asset prices have declined. The drought has led to difficult conditions in parts of the farm sector.
Australia’s terms of trade have increased over the past couple of years and have been stronger than earlier expected. This has helped boost national income. While the terms of trade are expected to decline over time, they are likely to stay at a relatively high level. The Australian dollar remains within the range that it has been in over the past two years on a trade-weighted basis, although it is currently in the lower part of that range.
The outlook for the labour market remains positive. With the economy growing above trend, a further reduction in the unemployment rate is expected to around 4¾ per cent in 2020. The vacancy rate is high and there are reports of skills shortages in some areas. Wages growth remains low, although it has picked up a little. The improvement in the economy should see some further lift in wages growth over time, although this is still expected to be a gradual process.
Inflation remains low and stable. Over the past year, CPI inflation was 1.9 per cent and, in underlying terms, inflation was 1¾ per cent. These outcomes were in line with the Bank’s expectations and were influenced by declines in some administered prices due to changes in government policies. Inflation is expected to pick up over the next couple of years, with the pick-up likely to be gradual. The central scenario is for inflation to be 2¼ per cent in 2019 and a bit higher in the following year.
Conditions in the Sydney and Melbourne housing markets have continued to ease and nationwide measures of rent inflation remain low. Growth in credit extended to owner-occupiers has eased but remains robust, while demand by investors has slowed noticeably as the dynamics of the housing market have changed. Credit conditions are tighter than they have been for some time, although mortgage rates remain low and there is strong competition for borrowers of high credit quality.
The low level of interest rates is continuing to support the Australian economy. Further progress in reducing unemployment and having inflation return to target is expected, although this progress is likely to be gradual. Taking account of the available information, the Board judged that holding the stance of monetary policy unchanged at this meeting would be consistent with sustainable growth in the economy and achieving the inflation target over time.
PEXA, Australia’s online property exchange, which assists members such as lawyer, conveyancers and financial institutions to lodge documents with Land Registries and complete financial settlements electronically, has been acquired by via a joint bid from Link Administration Holdings Limited, Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners and Commonwealth Bank (who is already a key stakeholder in the venture).
States across Australia have been moving across to the platform as the country aims for loans to become 100% digital.
CBA chief executive officer Matt Comyn said, “Having been a key stakeholder in PEXA since its inception in 2011, today’s announcement represents our continued commitment to support the property industry as it transitions towards an innovative, fully digital, settlements process that aims to provide improved experiences for customers.”
CBA also said the transaction aligns with its strategy to focus on its core banking businesses and to create a simpler, better bank for our customers. As part of the transaction, which is subject to a number of conditions precedent, CBA will invest a further $50 million, totalling approximately $100 million invested in PEXA to date. This will result in an increase in our ownership stake from 13.1% to approximately 16%.
No one seems to have noticed that one of the largest mortgage lenders is now also has a significant interest in the property settlement and transfer system – what could possibly go wrong?
Moody’s says that relaxed regulatory oversight for the largest US regional banks would be credit negative.
On 31 October, the US Federal Reserve (Fed) proposed revisions to the prudential standards for the supervision of large US bank holding companies to implement the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) that became law in May of this year. The proposal would apply less rigorous capital and liquidity standards to most large regional bank holding companies with less than $700 billion of consolidated assets or less than $75 billion of cross-jurisdictional activity, a credit-negative.
In particular, the Fed proposals would relax current supervisory requirements for banks with assets of more than $250 billion, which goes beyond the Act’s primary focus on banks below that threshold. However, the proposal is still consistent with the Act’s emphasis on regulation that increases in stringency with a firm’s risk profile, defining four categories of banks as described and named in Exhibit 1 (other firms are no longer subject to the Fed’s enhanced prudential standards under the Act).
The 11 firms in Category IV would be subject to significantly reduced regulatory requirements under the proposal, including public supervisory stress testing every two years instead of annually. These firms would also be permitted to exclude accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) from capital and would no longer be subject to the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) or proposed net stable funding ratio (NFSR) rules. Internal liquidity stress-testing would be required quarterly rather than monthly.
The four firms in Category III would be subject to modestly reduced regulatory requirements under the proposal. They would no longer have to apply the advanced approaches (internal models-based) risk-based capital requirements but would remain subject to the standardized approach requirements. Like Category IV firms, they could elect to exclude AOCI from capital. However, they would still be subject to the annual public supervisory stress tests. Their LCR and NFSR requirements would be reduced to between 70% and 85% of full requirements.
The changes in capital and liquidity requirements for Category III and IV firms are likely to reduce their capital and liquidity buffers, a credit negative. Moreover, the reduced frequency of capital and liquidity stress testing could lead to more relaxed oversight and afford banks greater leeway in managing their capital and liquidity, as well as reduce transparency and comparability, since fewer firms will participate in the public supervisory stress test.
Category I and II firms would not see any changes to their capital or liquidity requirements. The proposals do not address the US operations of foreign banking organizations, but a proposal on their supervision will likely be forthcoming.
