CommInsure pays $300,000 following ASIC concerns over misleading life insurance advertising

ASIC says CommInsure will pay $300,000 towards a consumer advice service and have its advertising sign-off processes independently reviewed after ASIC raised concerns about certain instances of its life insurance advertising.

ASIC commenced investigating CommInsure in April 2016, which included a review of CommInsure’s advertising of two life insurance policies:

  • Total Care Plan, sold through financial advisers
  • Simple Life Insurance, sold directly to consumers

The review looked at advertising from mid-2013 to March 2016 and found that misleading and deceptive statements are likely to have been made on some of CommInsure’s websites about the extent to which customers would be entitled to cover for trauma if they suffered a heart attack.

The statements may have led a policyholder to believe they would be entitled to a lump sum payment if they suffered a heart attack in general, when in fact only certain types of heart attacks, which met certain medical criteria as defined in the policy, were covered.

In response to ASIC’s concerns, CommInsure will commission an external firm to conduct a compliance review of its advertising sign-off processes and procedures. The review will look at whether CommInsure’s processes and procedures ensure compliance with the ASIC Act, and make recommendations to improve compliance if required.

CommInsure will report to ASIC by 30 June 2018 on the results of the review and the changes implemented.

As previously announced, CommInsure updated the definition of heart attack in its trauma life insurance products in March 2016 and is reassessing past claims under the updated definition back to October 2012. To date, CommInsure has paid additional benefits for 32 claims, totalling approximately $4 million as a result of the reassessed claims.

ASIC has now concluded its investigation into the life insurance business of CommInsure.

Background

CommInsure will make a $300,000 payment to the Financial Rights Legal Centre which will be used for the Insurance Law Service, a national specialist consumer insurance advice service operated for the benefit of vulnerable, low income and disadvantaged consumers.

ASIC released a public report on its investigation in March 2017 [17-076MR]

Following concerns raised by ASIC, CommInsure applied its updated heart attack definition back to October 2012, which was the date at which international cardiology bodies published an updated consensus on the appropriate clinical marker for heart attack.

S&P Says Mortgage Arrears Lower In Oct 2017

The latest report from S&P Global Ratings covering securised mortgage pools in Australia to end Oct 2017, showed 30 day delinquency fell to 1.04% in October from 1.08% in September. They attribute part of the decline to a rise in outstanding loan balances during the month, and many older loans in the portfolios (which may not be representative of all mortgages, thanks to the selection criteria for securitised pools).

+90 Day defaults are still elevated, see the chart below.

Here is their state summary

Overall trends across the states show the differences across states, with WA and NT still significantly above other states.

The ACT recorded the lowest arrears levels, at 0.58%. QLD and WA, where arrears have been more elevated for some time, recorded another month-on-month decline in mortgage delinquencies. In QLD, arrears fell to 1.39% in October from 1.47% in September. In WA, they declined to 2.12% from 2.21% a month earlier, against a backdrop of increasing loan balances. Home loan arrears also declined in NSW and VIC, but by smaller  magnitudes. In NSW, arrears fell to 0.75% in October–the second lowest in the country–from 0.79% in September. In VIC, arrears declined to 0.94% from 0.96% the previous month.

In terms of the outlook, they say:

“improving employment conditions and low interest rates have helped to keep mortgage arrears low, but risks remain. Australia’s high household indebtedness, which has outpaced income and GDP growth for some time, leaves borrowers vulnerable to a change in economic circumstances. We do not expect arrears to increase much above current levels while these relatively benign economic conditions persist, particularly given the high level of seasoning in the Australian RMBS sector”.

MYEFO – There’s a Consumer-Shaped Hole in Our Budget

On first blush, the revised federal budget has improved according to the MYEFO (Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook) released by the Treasurer  today.  But consumers are the weak link, and wage growth and consumption a problem – no wonder there is now talk of tax cuts for consumers! In addition, more savings are forecast, including an extension of the waiting period for newly arrived migrants to access welfare benefits and a freeze on higher education funding.

The budget is, they say, on track to return to balance in 2020-21, and overall debt as share of GDP is set to fall further. The latest projected surplus of $10.2 billion in 2020-21 is an improvement of $2.7 billion compared to May’s Budget estimate.

At the 2017-18 Budget, gross debt was projected to be $725 billion in 2027-28. Gross debt is now projected to reach around $684 billion by 2027-28 — a fall of around $40 billion. But absolute debt is still rising!

The improvement is driven by a rise in company profits, and company tax take. Commodity prices helped also, although they remain a key uncertainty to the outlook for the terms of trade and nominal GDP, especially in relation to the Chinese economy.

They say the fall off in mining investment is easing, while non-mining business investment is predicted to rise (a little), but we think overall business investment remains an issue.

Real GDP is forecast to grow by 2.5% in 2017-18, lower than at budget time (2.75%). Beyond that, real GDP is forecast to grow at 3% in 2018 19, per the original budget.

The 2017-18 forecast is lower driven by anemic outcomes for wage growth and domestic prices.  More than 360,000 jobs at a rate of 1,000 jobs a day having been created in 2017.  Yet, wages are now forecast to remain lower for longer, with index growth of 2.25% in June 2018, 0.25% lower than at budget time, and 2.75% to June 2019. They admit wages growth is lower than expected, but they still hope lifting economic momentum will lift wages, eventually – despite the very high levels of underemployment, and structural changes in working patterns. This lower forecast for wages is expected to weigh on personal income tax receipts and slow household consumption.

Finally, the assumed Treasury yields are set quite low, for modeling purposes.  Rising rates in the USA and elsewhere may lift rates faster.

 

 

Brokers to be included in royal commission

From The Adviser.

The Governor-General has now issued the Letters Patent to the Honourable Kenneth Madison Hayne AC QC, formerly a judge of the High Court, establishing the royal commission.

Notably, the Treasury outlined that the Letters Patent require the Royal Commission to inquire into the conduct of financial services entities, “including banks, insurers, superannuation trustees, holders of Australian financial services licenses and intermediaries, such as mortgage brokers”.

Intermediaries between borrowers and lenders have been added following the government’s consultation with the appointed Commissioner on the draft Terms of Reference, which were released earlier this month.

The royal commission will examine allegations of misconduct or conduct which falls below community expectations. The commission will be focused on identifying ways to ensure that Australia’s financial system continues to work efficiently, effectively and in the interests of consumers.

Commissioner Hayne is authorised to submit an interim report to the Governor-General no later than 30 September 2018, and required to submit a final report no later than 1 February 2019.

“The financial system plays an important role in the lives of all Australians and we encourage all interested parties to engage with the royal commission,” the Treasurer Scott Morisson said.

“The Government has already taken comprehensive action to deliver better outcomes and protections for banking and financial services customers.

“This includes moving to establish a new one-stop shop to resolve customer complaints; significantly bolstering the powers and resources of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; creating a framework to hold banking executives accountable for their actions; and boosting banking and financial services competition.”

CBA to Change Mortgage Broker Commission Structure

From The Adviser.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia expects to have the CIF-recommended changes to broker commissions instated “ahead of 30 June” next year, according to its general manager for distribution strategy and execution.

Speaking to The Adviser following CBA’s announcement that it would no longer accept accreditations from new mortgage brokers with less than two years of experience (or from those that only hold a Cert IV in Finance & Mortgage Broking), CBA’s general manager for third-party banking, Sam Boer, and Matthew Dawson, general manager for distribution strategy and execution, revealed that they expect to change broker commissions next winter.

Mr Boer and Mr Dawson both welcomed the Combined Industry Forum’s reform package, which was released last week (and to which Commonwealth Bank was a contributor) and included recommendations that lenders pay brokers commission on a utilisation basis (i.e., based on facility limit drawn down by the customer and, in cases where the loan has an offset account, on the amount drawn down net of offset account balances).

General manager Boer said: “The whole industry got behind that one and we thought it addresses the concern raised around the potential conflict of interest and we’re very much supportive of that and working through our solution with our business partners on how we might go about implementing that in the new year.”

Mr Dawson added: “We are still working through the how of the commission changes, but we expect that we will still have it implemented ahead of 30 June.”

The CIF reform package states that it expects the commission changes to be implemented by lenders by “end 2018”.

Changes to CBA accreditation for new brokers

Last week, the major bank revealed that it would be making major changes to the way it accredits new brokers.

From “the first quarter of 2018”, new mortgage brokers will be required to meet new minimum education standards to be able to write Commonwealth Bank loans and demonstrate a commitment to professional development and on-the-job experience.

For CBA accreditation, all new brokers will soon be required to meet the following standards:

– Hold at least a Diploma of Finance and Mortgage Broking Management

– Have at least two years’ experience writing regulated residential loans

– Be a current member of either the Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia (MFAA) or the Finance Brokers Association of Australia (FBAA)

– Be a Direct Credit Representative or employee of an approved Aggregator/Head Group or Australian Credit License (ACL) holder

Mr Dawson told The Adviser: “We will absolutely be building a training framework and ongoing professional development framework as part of the rollout of the new strategy coming in to ensure that the brokers we’re partnering with feel assured and comfortable when they are sitting down in front of a customer to have really deep conversations around appropriate products for them.

“We will be providing that and equally working with the head group programs to ensure that the head groups that have their own professional development programs… that we support each other…. We provide content for their platforms and, where appropriate, we will rely on their platforms as a means of us getting comfort over the professional development of brokers.”

Mr Dawson continued: “I think, for us, this has been about working with the [Combined] Industry Forum and we have played a key lead role in that.

“It has been really important for us, and we are really supportive of the industry forum and the consultation process that we ran in terms of the engagement with brokers.”

He revealed that the bank surveyed 12,000 brokers in July and got nearly 2,000 respondents.

“We’ve had focus groups with many brokers right throughout the country over the last couple of month. We’ve met with every head group. This has been, for us, all about residential and making sure we support a robust industry and support the longevity of the industry.”

Tic:Toc expands to Tasmania, as NSW investors rush to purchase in Hobart

Australian fintech Tic:Toc, today announced their world first instant home loan platform will be made available to customers purchasing or refinancing properties in Tasmania. We featured the firm in a recent Fintech Spotlight.

The online home loan, which uses a digital decisioning system to assess and approve finance in as little as 22 minutes, launched in July 2017 and initially excluded Tasmanian and Northern Territory properties from being eligible for finance.

The expansion coincides with the latest results from CoreLogic RP Data, which shows Hobart has had the largest increase in home value year on year at 11.49%, ahead of Melbourne (10.10%) and Canberra (5.84%).

Mainlanders have accounted for 23% of sales in Tasmania to date (REIT), with gross value of sales up 22.7% on last year at the end on the September quarter, putting the Tasmanian real estate market on track to for its highest ever accumulated market value of sales.

Tic:Toc CEO Anthony Baum said while the expansion had nothing to do with the buoyant Tasmanian market, he is pleased that Tic:Toc can now help people purchase Tasmanian properties via a faster and more cost effective home loan offering.

“We have had a lot of customer enquiry about purchasing property in Hobart – particularly from investors living in NSW – and we’ve had to turn them away, until today.

“We’re so excited to now be able to assist these customers get a better home loan experience online, with all of the unnecessary costs stripped from the process.

“We wanted to bring Tic:Toc to as many Australians as possible, as soon as possible, which meant not having a solution to verify customers’ identities at settlement in Tasmania at launch. We’ve worked hard to ensure Tasmanians and those investing in Tasmanian property can now benefit from Tic:Toc too.”

The home loans originated by Tic:Toc and backed by Australia’s fifth largest retail bank, Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, are now available throughout Australia at tictochomeloans.com; with variable comparison rates from 3.59% for live-in, principal and interest home loans.

Just five months from launch, Tic:Toc has already processed more than $340M worth of loan submissions Australia wide and were one of only ten Australian companies globally recognised in the recent KPMG and H2 Venture’s Fintech 100.

ANZ completes sale of 20% stake in Shanghai Rural Commercial Bank

ANZ today announced it has completed the sale of its 20% stake in Shanghai Rural Commercial Bank (SRCB), originally announced in January 2017.

As part of the Group’s broader capital management plan, ANZ now intends to buy-back up to $1.5 billion of shares on-market.

ANZ Chief Financial Officer Michelle Jablko said: “ANZ’s strong capital position combined with the progress made in simplifying our business means we are now in a position to commence returning surplus capital to shareholders while still complying with APRA’s unquestionably strong capital requirements.”

ANZ’s CET1 capital ratios as at 30 September 2017 will remain broadly unchanged on a pro forma basis with the ~40 basis point benefit from the completion of SRCB offsetting the impact of the on-market share buy-back.

ANZ has already purchased ~$500 million shares on-market to neutralise the effect of the dividend reinvestment program for both the interim and final 2017 dividends as well as the impact of ANZ’s share-based employee compensation plans.

The divestment of non-core businesses, including the sale of our Australian life insurance business last week, should provide ANZ with flexibility to consider further capital management initiatives in the future.

ANZ will continue to manage its capital prudently. Further capital management initiatives will only be undertaken while ensuring sufficient capital is available to support growth as well as being subject to business conditions and regulatory approval after the actual receipt of the relevant sale proceeds.

In order to comply with regulatory requirements, the purchase of shares will likely begin in January 2018, subject to market conditions.

CBA admissions will make class action easier but shareholders still have a lot to prove

From The Conversation.

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia recently admitted it breached Australia’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws. The admissions in its response to allegations from the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) will make it easier for shareholders to prove their claims of misleading and deceptive conduct in a class action launched against the bank in October.

CBA’s willingness to admit what it has done also signals a possibility the bank might resolve the class action through a settlement. In the meantime shareholders still need to prove their claims, even if some are on stronger footing thanks to the CBA.

AUSTRAC’s first lot of allegations noted CBA failed to comply with its obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 with respect to more than 778,000 accounts. The bank is obliged to assess the risk of, monitor and report suspicious deposit activity that was being conducted through intelligent deposit machines (IDMs). These machines are ATMs that accept cash deposits that are immediately available in the depositor’s account.

AUSTRAC then amended its complaint on December 14, 2017, to add a further 100 alleged contraventions.

CBA’s response to the original allegations admits that it did fail to comply with the Act in certain respects and accepts that these contraventions do subject it to a civil penalty. But the bank denies other alleged contraventions.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn filed a class action on behalf of shareholders with CBA shares between July 1, 2015 and August 3, 2017. The shareholders allege that CBA – and over a dozen of its officers and directors – knew or should have known about the non-compliance. They argue this failure to disclose or rectify the situation caused loss once the share price fell after AUSTRAC made CBA’s non-compliance public.

None of this is proved solely by the fact that CBA admitted committing some breaches of the Act. The additional claims brought by AUSTRAC this week do not alter the existing shareholder claims, but they may see the scope of the class action increased.

What CBA admits and what shareholders need to prove

CBA’s admissions may impact the efficiency and conduct of the class action, but they are unlikely to affect what shareholders need to prove. CBA’s response admits much of the conduct that contravenes the Act, but that’s not the same as an admission of liability in relation to the quite different legal claims made by the shareholders.

CBA admits that it did not conduct a proper risk assessment of its IDMs until more than three years after the machines had been put into operation. The bank also admits that it did not conduct adequate monitoring of IDM deposits, for example by introducing daily deposit limits. This is despite having assessed the risk of IDMs being used for money laundering or terrorism financing as high.

CBA further admits that in over 53,500 separate instances, it did not file reports whenever a deposit of more than A$10,000 was made, as required by the Act. It also failed to file either complete or timely reports of suspicious account activity in nearly 100 instances.

But the shareholders’ claims are based on something different: CBA’s non-compliance with securities disclosure rules and on misleading and deceptive conduct by CBA.

In order to win in the class action, the shareholders will have to prove the elements of the claims they allege, including that the lack of AUSTRAC compliance was the cause of the drop in CBA share price and that the plaintiffs suffered loss as a result of that drop.

The test for the link between non-disclosure and loss, and the way to calculate the amount of that loss, has not been determined in the class action cases so far. However, courts have heard similar shareholder arguments to those raised by the CBA shareholders in other cases, so the issues raised aren’t new.

For example, in the case surrounding the liquidation of HIH Insurance Limited, Justice Brereton of the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that shareholders rely on the share price as an accurate reflection of share value. Accordingly, when corporate misconduct inflates the share price, the corporation indirectly causes shareholders to suffer loss.

A key issue the CBA class action will be whether CBA’s non-compliance with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act, and the subsequent AUSTRAC civil penalty proceedings, impacted the share price and to what extent.

Authors: Michael Legg, Professor of Law, UNSW; James D Metzger, Scholarly Teaching Fellow in Civil Procedure, University of Sydney

Safe as Houses? Not if You Live in Australia

An interesting perspective via a press release from online broker FXB Trading.

Whilst they are pushing their “hedge strategy” for Australian property, drawing parallels with the US crash of 2007; the key points they make are important and largely align with our view of the local property market.  If they are right, recent price falls are just the start!

According to Jonathan Tepper, one of the world’s experts in housing bubbles, Australia is experiencing the biggest property bubble in history. It has lasted 55 years and seen prices increase 6556% since 1961. “It is the only country we know of where middle-class houses are auctioned like paintings,” he observed recently.

When it crashes it’s likely to bring Australia’s economy crashing down with it, as it’s the only sector which has driven GDP growth of late. It’s one of those rare opportunities traders relish because the volatility in the market will be big and significantly increases the chance of being able to make a huge gain from an investment.

You can thank State and Federal governments for this opportunity. They have done everything they can to fuel the housing market in an effort to boost Australia’s economy and offset the decline in the value and volume of its chief exports iron ore and coal. The growth of the economy has provided governments with a source of tax revenue and proof to voters that their policies result in economic success.

The Australian media has also been complicit in the perpetuation of the property bubble. Objective reporting on property has disappeared because the Murdoch and Fairfax duopoly, which controls media output in the country, have been protecting their only major growth profit centres realestate.com.au and Domain the country’s two largest real estate portals.

Headlines celebrating a 26-year-old train driver who services the debt on five million dollars worth of property with his salary and rental income have become commonplace, with hordes of others being similarly celebrated for their achievements.

The formula for success which has enabled individuals on modest incomes to gain ownership of seven figure property portfolios comes through the black magic of cross-collateralised residential mortgages, where Australian banks allow the unrealised capital gain of one property to secure financing to purchase another property.

This unrealised capital gain takes the place of a cash deposit. For instance, if the house bought a year ago for $350,000 is now valued at $450,000 the bank is willing to let the owner use that equity gain to finance the purchase of another property.

LF Economics describe this as a “classic mortgage ponzi finance model”. When the housing market falls, this unrealised capital gain becomes a loss, and the whole portfolio becomes undone. The similarities to underestimation of the probability of default correlation in Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDOs), which led to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC)in 2008, are striking.

However, unlike the US property situation there is no housing shortage in Australia. High housing prices in Australia have not come about because of the natural forces of supply and demand but by the banks’ willingness to lend. Credit from privatised and deregulated financial system has been the leading cause of the property bubble – as it was in the US – which has resulted in loans being granted to a very high percentage of the people who applied for one.

Loose credit was used to speculate on the property market, generating easy profits until the bubble peaked and then collapsed the financial sector in 2008 in the US. Following deregulation of Australia’s financial sector the amount of credit banks extended has increased dramatically. Mortgage debt has more than quadrupled from 19% of GDP in 1990 to 84% in 2012, which is a higher level than that of the US at its peak.

In many other parts of the world the GFC took the wind out of their real estate bubbles. From 2000 to 2008, driven to an extent by the First Home Buyer Grant, Australian house prices had already doubled. Rather than let the market as it was around the rest of the world during the GFC, the Australian Government doubled the bonus. Treasury notes recorded at the time reveal that it was launched to prevent the collapse of the housing market rather than make housing more affordable.

Already at the time of the GFC, Australian households were at 190% debt to net disposable income, 50% more indebted than American households, but the situation really got out of hand.

The government decided to further fuel the fire by “streamlining” the administrative requirements for the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) so that temporary residents could purchase real estate in Australia without having to report or gain approval.

In 2015-16 there were 40,149 residential real estate applications from foreigners valued at over $72 billion in the latest data by FIRB. This is up 320% by value from three years before. Most of these came from Chinese investors.

Many Chinese investors borrowed the money to buy these houses from Australian banks using fake statements of foreign income. According to the Australian Financial Review banks were being tricked with cheap photoshopped bank statements that can be obtained online.

UBS estimates that $500 billion worth of “not completely factually accurate” mortgages now sit on major bank balance sheets.

This injection of foreign investment has made Australian housing completely unaffordable for Australians. Urban planners say that a median house price to household income ratio of 4.1 to 5.0 is “seriously unaffordable” and 5.1 or over “severely unaffordable”.

At the end of July 2017 the median house price in Sydney was $1,178,417 with an average household income of $91,000. This makes the median house price to household income ratio for Sydney 13x, or over 2.6 times the threshold of “severely unaffordable”. Melbourne is 9.6x.

However, the CEOs of the Big Four banks in Australia think that these prices are “justified by the fundamentals”. More likely because the Big Four, who issue over 80% of the country’s residential mortgages, are more exposed as a percentage of loans than any other banks in the world.

How the fundamentals can be justified when the average person in Sydney can’t actually afford to buy the average house in Sydney, no matter how many decades they try to push the loan out is something only an Australian banker can explain.

In October this year Digital Finance Analytics estimated in a report that 910,000 households are now estimated to be in mortgage stress where net income does not cover ongoing costs. This has increased 50% in less than a year and now represents 29.2% of all households in Australia.

Despite record low interest rates, Australians are paying more of their income to pay off interest than they were when they were paying record mortgage rates back in 1989-90, which are over double what they are now.

The long period of prosperity and rising valuations of investments in Australia has led to increasing speculation using borrowed money which neither governments or banks did anything to quell.

The spiralling debt incurred in financing speculative investments has now resulted in cash flow problems for investors. The cash they generate is no longer sufficient to pay off the debt they took on to acquire them. Losses on such speculative assets prompt lenders to call in their loans. This is the point which results in a collapse of asset values.

Over-indebted investors are forced to sell even their less-speculative positions to repay their loans. However, at this point counterparties are hard to find to bid at the high asking prices previously quoted. This starts a major sell-off, leading to a sudden and precipitous collapse in market-clearing asset prices, a sharp drop in market liquidity, and a severe demand for cash.

FXB Trading’s experts have been monitoring Australia’s housing market and its economy for many months and are convinced it has now reached the point of no return and that a crash is imminent.

Global inequality is on the rise – but at vastly different rates across the world

From The Conversation.

Inequality is rising almost everywhere across the world – that’s the clear finding of the first ever World Inequality Report. In particular, it has grown fastest in Russia, India and China – places where this was long suspected but there was little accurate data to paint a reliable picture.

Until now, it was actually very difficult to compare inequality in different regions of the world because of sparse or inconsistent data, which lacked credibility. But, attempting to overcome this gap, the new World Inequality Report is built on data collection work carried out by more than a hundred researchers located across every continent and contributing to the World Wealth and Income Database.

Europe is the least unequal region of the world, having experienced a milder increase in inequality. At the bottom half of the table are Sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil and India, with the Middle East as the most unequal region.

Since 1980, the report shows that there has been rising inequality occurring at different speeds in most parts of the world. This is measured by the top 10% share of income distribution – how much of the nation’s income the top 10% of earners hold.

Places where inequality has remained stable are those where it was already at very high levels. In line with this trend, we observe that the Middle East is perhaps the most unequal region, where the top 10% of income earners have consistently captured over 60% of the nation’s income.

Inequality is always a concern

Even in Europe, where it is less pronounced, equality always raises ethical concerns. For example, in Western Europe, many do not receive a real living wage, despite working hard, often in full-time employment. Plus, the data shows that the top 10% of earners in Europe as a whole still hold 37% of the total national income in 2016.

Rising income inequality should be focal to public debate because it is also a factor which motivates human behaviour. It affects how we consume, save and invest. For many, it determines whether one can access the credit market or a good school for our children

This, in turn, may affect economic growth, raising the question of whether it is economically efficient to have unequal societies.

Going into the details of what drives the rise in income inequality, the report shows that unequal ownership of national wealth is an important force. National wealth can be either publicly owned (for example, the value of schools, hospitals and public infrastructure) or privately owned (the value of private assets).

Since 1980, very large transfers of public to private wealth occurred in nearly all countries, whether rich or emerging. While national wealth has substantially increased, public wealth is now negative or close to zero in rich countries. In particular, the UK and the US are countries with the lowest levels of public capital.

Arguably, this limits the ability of governments to tackle inequality. Certainly, it has important implications for wealth inequality among citizens. It also indicates that national policies shaping ownership of capital have been a major factor contributing to the rise of inequality since 1980.

Inequality in the developing world

Resource rich economies are traditionally considered to be prone to conflict or more authoritarian in terms of how they are governed. What this new report tells us is that some resource rich economies, such as “oil economies”, are also extremely unequal. This was often suspected because natural resources are often concentrated in the hands of a minority. Until this report, however, there was no clear evidence.

The World Inequality Report appears to show us that the Middle East region may be even more unequal than Central and South America, which have long been held up as some of the most unequal places on Earth.

Another significant finding is that countries at similar stages of development have seen different patterns of rising inequality. This suggests that national policies and institutions can make the difference. The trajectories of three major emerging economies are illustrative. Russia has an abrupt increase, China a moderate pace and India a gradual one.

The comparison between Europe and the US provides an even more striking example – Western Europe remains the place with the lowest concentration of national income among the top 10% of earners.

Compared with the US, the divergence in inequality has been spectacular. While the top 1% income share was close to 10% in both regions in 1980, it rose only slightly to 12% in 2016 in Western Europe, while it shot up to 20% in the US. This might help explain the rise in populism. Those left behind grow impatient when they do not see any tangible improvement (or even a worsening) in their living conditions.

It is not just important to reduce inequality to make society more fair. Equal societies are associated with other important outcomes. As well as political and social stability, education, crime and financial stability may all suffer when inequality is high.

With this new data at our fingertips, we can now act to learn from the policies of more equal regions and implement them to reduce inequality across the world.

Author: Antonio Savoia, Lecturer in Development Economics, University of Manchester