APRA could have investigated CBA years ago

From The Conversation.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has become the second regulator to independently investigate the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Experts say the inquiry puts the regulator in the tricky position of being tough on bank scandals but juggling its close relationship with the government and the CBA.

The inquiry follows civil proceedings launched against the bank for being complicit in money laundering.

“APRA cannot leave this deterioration in the public’s trust and confidence in our banks to fester for any longer,” says Eliza Wu, from the University of Sydney.

The investigation will be run by an independent panel, appointed by APRA. It will run for six months after which the regulator will receive a final report, to be made public.

The inquiry focus will be on governance, culture and accountability frameworks at the CBA. APRA Chairman Wayne Byres said:

A key objective of the inquiry will be to provide CBA with a set of recommendations for organisation and cultural change, where that is identified as being necessary.

The inquiry will have the power to compel CBA employees to provide information at its request, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in a confidentiality agreement. But it will not have the power to compel witness statements from people outside the organisation, which a royal commission would have.

The government has come out in support of the inquiry. But the timing of the response has raised questions about whether the regulator should have acted sooner.

“Morrison has stated that APRA is independent, and that this is APRA’s decision, not his. But the timing raises questions in light of the Treasurer’s obvious pique, motivated no doubt by the political capital that the Turnbull government has expended resisting a royal commission – no mean feat for a government with a one seat majority and trailing badly in the polls,” says Andy Schmulow, from the University of Western Australia.

APRA’s ability to prosecute the CBA relies on prudential standards which set out minimum foundations for good governance. But Schmulow says APRA has had many opportunities to investigate this, since its introduction in 2015.

“The question is whether APRA’s announcement of an inquiry should have come earlier – possibly years earlier – and if so whether APRA’s announcement today is mere coincidence, or whether it is responding to pressure from the Treasurer,” he says.

Academics agree that APRA is the best agency to run an inquiry on the CBA, due to the agency’s close relationship with the banks and knowledge of the industry.

“APRA is really the only agency which could do it. It already has a team focused on each of the banks. None of the other agencies has any deep knowledge of how banks work,” says Rodney Maddock, from Monash University.

“The banks and the regulators are involved in regular two-way conversations. Such interaction is essential to the way Australia supervises its banks, rather than launching legal cases at each other. Most countries regard our regulatory model as one of the best in the world.”

The CBA has faced a series of scandals involving its insurance and financial advice and planning arms and most recently for not complying with the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act.

The inquiry puts the regulator in a difficult trade-off in dealing with threats to financial security and creating unfair competition, if its perceived to be focusing too much scrutiny on one bank.

“If APRA is not seen to be asking serious questions into how this could have come about and to conduct a critical evaluation of CBA’s risk management framework and the checks and balances that are meant to be in place, there is a danger that depositors may start pulling out their savings… we end up with a liquidity drainage out of our banking system and a major disruption to credit supply,” Eliza Wu says.

CBA is the largest bank in Australia by total assets and by the amount of deposit funding that it has.

The inquiry might also have ramifications for other cases yet to be launched by international regulators against the bank.

“Reports indicate that Hong Kong and Malaysian authorities are requesting information from CBA about cross-border anti-money laundering and counter terrorism failures. What would be of even greater concern is that any transactions that involve US dollars would have to go through and be cleared in New York, and in the past the US authorities have taken steps against, among others, Australian entities for illegal conduct. This includes conduct that went nowhere near the US. So this potentially opens multiple battle fronts for CBA both foreign and domestic,” says Andy Schmulow.

Author: Jenni Henderson, Editor, Business and Economy, The Conversation

APRA Probes CBA

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) today announced its intention to establish an independent prudential inquiry into the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) focusing on governance, culture and accountability frameworks and practices within the group.

Of note is their perspective that capital security is not sufficient to guarantee the long term security of the financial system, – culture and accountability are critical too. Of course the big question will be – is CBA an outlier?  Does this also provide more weight to calls for a broader Royal Commission?

The prudential inquiry will be conducted by an independent panel, to be appointed by APRA. Subject to settling the final terms of reference, it is anticipated that the panel will provide a final report to APRA around six months from the formal commencement of the inquiry, and that this report will be made public.

APRA Chairman Wayne Byres said the decision to initiate a prudential inquiry followed a number of issues which have raised concerns regarding the frameworks and practices in relation to the governance, culture and accountability within the CBA group, and have damaged the bank’s reputation and public standing.

Mr Byres said: “The overarching goal of the prudential inquiry is to identify any core organisational and cultural drivers at the heart of these issues and to provide the community with confidence that any shortcomings identified are promptly and adequately addressed.

“CBA is a well-capitalised and financially sound institution. However, beyond financial measures, it is also critical to the long-run health of the financial system that the Australian community has a high degree of confidence that banks and other financial institutions are well governed and prudently managed.

“The Australian community’s trust in the banking system has been damaged in recent years, and CBA in particular has been negatively impacted by a number of issues that have affected the reputation of the bank. Given its position in the Australian financial system, it is critical that community trust is strengthened. A key objective of the inquiry will be to provide CBA with a set of recommendations for organisation and cultural change, where that is identified as being necessary.

“The Chairman and CEO of the CBA have assured me that the bank will fully cooperate with the inquiry, and APRA welcomes that cooperation,” Mr Byres said.

Conduct of the inquiry

The names of the panel members and the agreed terms of reference will be finalised and published at the commencement of the inquiry. The costs of the inquiry will be met by CBA.

Broadly, the goal of the inquiry is to identify any shortcomings in the governance, culture and accountability frameworks and practices within CBA, and make recommendations as to how they are promptly and adequately addressed. It would include, at a minimum, considering whether the group’s organisational structure, governance, financial objectives, remuneration and accountability frameworks are conflicting with sound risk management and compliance outcomes.

The independent panel would not be tasked with making specific determinations regarding matters that are currently the subject of legal proceedings, regulatory actions by other regulators, or customers’ individual cases.

CBA says:

The Commonwealth Bank of Australia today acknowledges and supports the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s announcement of an independent prudential inquiry. The inquiry, which will focus on governance, culture and accountability frameworks and practices, will have the Bank’s full cooperation.

The Chairman of CBA, Catherine Livingstone AO, said: “CBA recognises that events over recent years have weakened the community’s trust in us. We have been working hard to strengthen trust, and will continue to do so. We welcome this opportunity for independent parties to review the work we have already undertaken and advise on what more we can do.”

“APRA’s oversight of this inquiry will ensure the independence and transparency needed to reassure all our stakeholders.”

CBA Chief Executive Officer, Ian Narev said: “We are confident that our 50,000 people come to work each day to give their best, for the benefit of our customers. At the same time, we know that our mistakes have hurt our reputation.”

“An independent and transparent view on the work we have done, and the work we still have to do, is an important element of strengthening trust. So this inquiry has our full support, to ensure it is as effective as possible.”

CBA also notes APRA’s confirmation today that the Bank is well capitalised and financially sound.

Finance sector must ‘rebuild trust’: Laker

From InvestorDaily.

Australia’s financial system has been suffering from a “steady erosion of trust” ever since the GFC, says former APRA chairman John Laker.

Speaking at a Finsia event about ethics and integrity yesterday, former APRA chairman John Laker said Australia is in danger of being “tarred with the same brush” as financial institutions overseas.

Dr Laker, who is the chairman of the Banking and Finance Oath, noted that the Australian finance sector was one of the few worldwide to successfully negotiate the GFC.

Australia’s banking system was remarkably resilient throughout 2007, 2008 and 2009, he said.

Not only were the big banks well managed and profitable, Dr Laker said – they provided shareholders with double-digit returns on equity almost all the way through the crisis.

By comparison, financial systems elsewhere in the world suffered twin crises of solvency and legitimacy when global credit dried throughout the GFC, he said.

However, in the past decade an ongoing series of financial advice, insider trading, insurance, lending and (most recently) money laundering scandals have seen the major banks’ reputations battered.

Dr Laker pointed to a recent EY survey that found only 20 per cent of Australians trust their financial institution to put their interests first.

“That was the same low level as the UK, which we all thought had a worse GFC experience,” he said.

“The call to action to rebuild trust is as strong in Australia as it has been in other countries.”

Dr Laker said he is trying to convince institutions to encourage their staff to take the Banking and Finance Oath.

“Signing the oath doesn’t make somebody ethical. And not signing it doesn’t [say] they aren’t ethical. It’s aspirational,” he said.

“In a sense it’s a pity that we have to have an oath. But that’s the world Australia is now in. You can’t stay aloof from what’s happening offshore.

“We are being tainted by that loss in confidence in financial institutions.”

Non-banks call for more limited APRA scrutiny

From Australian Broker.

Four leading non-bank lenders have criticised the extensive nature of powers proposed to the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) to be implemented over the non-ADI lending sector.

In a joint submission to the Treasury, Pepper Group, Liberty Financial, Firstmac and RESIMAC addressed these potential new APRA powers.

While the lenders appreciated the need for financial stability and sound lending practices, they pointed out that non-ADI lenders and ADIs are significantly different.

“While non-ADI lenders provide a range of essential functions and products to all Australians, they do not provide as broad a range of products, nor do they accept deposits, nor are they responsible for key pieces of banking infrastructure. Non-ADI lenders promote healthy competition within the finance sector, and service areas and customers that ADIs lenders cannot or are unable to service.”

The regulation of non-banks should thus be limited to “exceptional circumstances” if activity from a non-ADI lender is deemed to threaten the stability of the financial system.

The Treasury’s recent exposure draft on these proposed powers creates “unnecessary regulatory intervention” and “regulatory uncertainty” within the sector, they said.

“It casts an extremely wide net, both in terms of the proposed entities to be regulated and the level of regulatory oversight. We recommend that the legislation be modified to facilitate a more targeted regulatory approach to avoid causing unintended instability in the capital markets, the non-ADI lending sector and the Australian economy more generally.”

The submission, which was prepared by legal firm King & Wood Mallesons, proposes a number of specifics with regards to any future regulatory powers granted to APRA:

  • The definition of non-ADI lenders should be restricted only to those engaging in lending finance or in activities which directly result in the origination of loans
  • When assessing the impact of non-ADI lending practices on financial stability, the activities of non-ADI lenders related to ADIs should be excluded
  • Specific details of when APRA can create a ‘rule’ to further regulate a non-ADI lender should be contained either within the legislation or the guidance notes accompanying that rule
  • APRA will assess competitive issues within the relevant markets prior to exercising its rule-making power
  • This rule-making power will be limited to target macro-prudential concerns rather than regulating overall business aspects of the non-bank lender
  • APRA must consult with any affected non-ADI lender prior to creating a rule relating to that firm
  • A transitional period will be held before a rule comes into effect to ensure that the lender can meet its commitments to borrowers prior to any restrictions
  • Proposed rules that apply to the non-ADI lending sector will be no worse than any specific rule applying to the ADI sector
  • Directions to refrain from lending activities should only be made in the event of repeated and severe non-compliance by the lender

“Given the nature of a non-ADI lender and its industry, the rule making and enforcement power needs to be more specific, and different from the prudential standard and oversight approach taken with ADIs,” the joint submission said.

The statement continued, saying that vague regulation would negatively affect the confidence of the investors funding non-bank lenders, reducing the sustainability of the lender’s business model and thus restricting competition.

“In the absence of certainty as to when, how and why APRA may regulate, investors may question the non-ADI business model which may reduce the availability of capital markets funding and increase funding costs and limit the availability of warehouse funding, which in turn may have the unintended adverse effect on the level of loans and pricing in the retail lending market.”

APRA To Ease New Banking Entrance Requirements

APRA is reviewing its licensing approach for authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs). They propose new entrants could gain an interim licence and operate on a conditional basis for a period before transitioning to a full licence, with a view to increasing competition in the banking sector.

The discussion paper seeks views on the proposed amendments to introduce a phased approach to authorisation, designed to make it easier for applicants to navigate the ADI licensing process.

The phased approach is intended to support increased competition in the banking sector by reducing barriers to new entrants being authorised to conduct banking business, including those with innovative or otherwise non-traditional business models or those leveraging greater use of technology. In particular, the purpose of the Restricted ADI licence is to allow applicants to obtain a licence to begin limited operations while still developing the full range of resources and capabilities necessary to meet the prudential framework.

An overview of the phased approach is depicted below.

In facilitating a phased approach, APRA still needs to ensure community confidence that deposits with all ADIs are adequately safeguarded, and that any new approach does not create competitive advantages for new entrants over incumbents, or compromise financial stability. Therefore, reflecting their relative infancy, Restricted ADIs will be strictly limited in their activity and would not be expected to be actively conducting banking business during the restricted period.

The Restricted ADI licence will be subject to certain eligibility requirements and a maximum period after which they are expected to transition to an ADI and fully comply with the prudential framework or exit the industry.

APRA invites written submissions from all interested parties on its proposals for the phased approach to licensing new entrants to the banking sector.

Submissions close on 30 November 2017.

Submissions are welcome on all aspects of the proposals. In addition, specific areas where feedback on the proposed direction would be of assistance to APRA in finalising its proposals are outlined below.

Introduction of phased approach for ADIs​ ​Should APRA establish a phased approach to licensing applicants in the banking industry?
​Balance of APRA‘s mandate ​Do the proposals strike an appropriate balance between financial safety and considerations such as those relating to efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality?
​Eligibility ​Are the proposed eligibility criteria appropriate for new entrants to the banking industry under a Restricted ADI licence?
Restricted ADI Licence phase​ ​Is two years an appropriate time for an ADI to be allowed to operate in a restricted fashion without fully meeting the prudential framework? Is two years a sufficient period of time for a Restricted ADI to demonstrate it fully meets the prudential framework?
Minimum requirements​ ​Are the proposed minimum requirements appropriate for potential new entrants to the banking industry? Are there alternative requirements APRA should consider?
​Licence restrictions ​Are the proposed licence restrictions appropriate for an ADI on a Restricted ADI licence? Are there alternative or other restrictions APRA should consider?
Financial Claims Scheme​ ​Are the proposals appropriate in the context of the last resort protection afforded to depositors under the Financial Claims Scheme?
Further refinement​ ​Are there other refinements to the licensing process APRA should consider?

During the consultation process APRA may also look to arrange discussions of these proposals with interested parties

Home Loans Still Rising Too Fast

The latest monthly banking statistics for July 2017 from APRA are out. It reconfirms that growth in the mortgage books of the banks is still growing too fast. The value of their mortgage books rose 0.63% in the month to $1.57 trillion. Within that, owner occupied loans rose 0.73% to $1,017 billion whilst investor loans rose 0.44% to $522 billion.

Investor loans were 35.18% of the portfolio.

The monthly growth rates continues to accelerate, with both owner occupied and investor loans growing (despite the weak regulatory intervention).  On an annual basis owner occupied loans are 6.9% higher than a year ago, and investor loans 4.8% higher. Both well above inflation and income growth, so household debt looks to rise further. The remarkable relative inaction by the regulators remains a mystery to me given these numbers. Whilst they jawbone about the risks of high household debt, they are not acting to control this growth.

Looking at individual lenders, there was no change in the overall ranking by share.

But interestingly, we see significant variations in strategy working through to changes in the majors month on month portfolio movements.

ANZ has focussed on growing its owner occupied book, WBC is still in growth mode on both fronts, whilst CBA dropped their investor portfolio. We also saw a number of smaller lenders expand their books.

Looking at the speed limit on investor loans – 10% is too high -we see the investor market at 5% (sum of monthly movements), with all the majors well below the limit. But some smaller players are still growing faster.

We have to conclude one of two things. Either the regulators are not serious about slowing household debt growth, and the recent language is simply lip service (after all the strategy has been to use households as the growth engine as the mining sector faded), or they are hoping their interventions so far will work though, given time. Well given the recent auction results (still strong) and the loan growth (still strong) we do not believe enough is being done. Time is not their friend.

Indeed, later this week we will release our mortgage stress update. We suspect households will continue to have debt issues, and this will be exacerbated by interest rate rises in a flat income, high cost growth scenario many households are facing. The bigger the debt burden, the longer it will be to work through the system, with major economic ramifications meantime.

The RBA data will be out later, and we will see if there have been more loans switched between category, and whether non-banks are also growing their books. Both are likely.

 

 

Australia’s Proposal to Allow Local Mutuals to Issue Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Is Credit Positive

From Moody’s.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced a proposal to amend the existing mutual equity interest (MEI) framework to allow Australian mutually owned deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) to directly issue common equity Tier 1 (CET1) eligible capital instruments. The current framework only creates CET1-equivalent capital, so-called MEIs, through the conversion of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) and Tier 2 capital instruments at the ADI’s point of non-viability. The amendment is credit positive because it would provide an additional option for mutuals to support balance sheet growth by raising high-quality capital. Australia’s mutuals have relied on retained earnings as their sole CET1 source because their mutual corporate status by definition has not allowed them to raise common equity.

APRA’s proposed amendment would allow mutuals to raise capital outside of extreme circumstances. The amendment also would provide a more efficient capital channel for mutuals to respond to growth opportunities. Mutuals thus far have relied on retained earnings accumulation as their primary source of CET1 capital. We view the proposal as an important step in levelling the playing field between mutuals and listed Australian ADIs, the latter of which have the ability to raise common equity.

We do not expect the amendment, if enacted, to strongly increase common equity issuance to replace retained earnings as a dominant CET1 capital source because of mutuals’ already-strong capitalization and the limits that APRA will set on such instruments. Australia’s mutuals have no urgent need to boost their capital ratios. The exhibit below shows that mutuals have consistently reported higher average CET1 ratios than other ADIs. As of the end of March 2017, their aggregate CET1 ratio was 15.8%, versus 10.3% for all ADIs.

Under the current MEI framework, which has been in place since 2014, Moody’s-rated mutuals have 2% of their total capital as AT1 and Tier 2 instruments. (Moody’s-rated mutuals make up approximately 50% of the mutual sector’s total assets.)

The regulator also limits mutuals’ ability to rely on MEI-created CET1 (either through conversion of AT1 and Tier 2 instruments or direct issuance). Specifically, APRA has proposed a 15% cap on the inclusion of MEIs in CET1 capital, and distribution of profits to MEI investors at 50% of ADIs’ net profit after tax on an annual basis.

We expect that MEIs will continue to account for only a minor share of mutuals’ capital, which alleviates the risk that the APRA proposal will incentivize mutuals to maximize their profitability to meet MEI investors’ dividend payment expectations. This scenario would conflict with mutual ADIs’ traditional business model that de-emphasizes profit maximization, and instead focuses on providing value to members via cheaper loans and higher-yielding deposits.

Why regulators have finally noticed the non-banks

From Mortgage Professional Australia.

There are two ways to bury bad news, and brokers have now experienced both. Method one is to run that news on a Friday when everyone’s mind is on the weekend, as APRA did when announcing curbs on interest-only lending on the final day of March. The 2017 Federal Budget took the other approach: burying bad news in more news, namely a controversial $6.2bn bank levy.

Whether increased regulation of non-banks is indeed ‘bad news’ is up for interpretation. Yet for an industry so jaded by regulation, the announcement that APRA will now have oversight of non-bank lenders – who were previously regulated by ASIC – has occurred with remarkably little in the way of reaction.

“Of all the things that were announced, that’s the biggest deal,” Martin North, principal of consultancy Digital Finance Analytics told MPA. “If APRA now has responsibility for them, they will have to make a decision about whether they require them to hold capital, which is probably not going to happen as they aren’t ADIs … but they will probably put a structure, or limits, or some other mechanism to reduce the risky lending behaviour.”

A work in progress

With just three paragraphs in hundreds of pages of budget papers, there’s little in the way of specific information on the new regulations. It has now been confirmed that the government will provide an extra $2.6m over four years to APRA to “exercise new powers” and collect data from non-authorised deposit-taking institutions. To assist with this the Banking Act of 1959 will be modernised, also enabling APRA to restrict lending to certain geographical areas.

Appearing before the Senates Estimates Committee in late May, APRA chairman Wayne Byres was pushed for more information on APRA’s role. Byres played down the degree of regulation. “If there is a systemic risk … APRA would have the capacity to introduce some rules which might help mitigate that. But that is very different to saying we take day-to-day responsibility for individual institutions.”

Nevertheless, uncertainty remains. Asked by Liberal senator David Bushby which institutions would be affected by APRA’s expanded powers, Byres was unable to provide an answer, as the government had yet to announce the actual powers APRA would have.

Byres was more specific about why the new powers were required. It was “in some sense” a consequence of restricting lending by ADIs to investors, which Byres suspected had pushed a large degree of investor lending into the nonbank sector. While Byres said the failure of individual non-banks was “a fact of life”, a build-up of risky lending in the sector could have more far-reaching consequences.

Investor and interest-only caps

Byres’ inability to specify APRA’s new powers (at the time of writing) leaves open the possibility of APRA capping investor and interest lending growth by non-banks at the same level as banks. At present, growth per lender is capped at 10% and 30% respectively.

APRA warned ADIs in March that lending by non-banks they fund “should not be growing faster than their own portfolio or materially faster than their own portfolio and also should be of a similar quality to loans they would be prepared to write themselves”, Byres told the Senate Estimates Committee.

Having experienced rapid investor lending growth from a small base, many non-banks would be hit hard by a percentage-based limit. In a furious article in Australian Broker magazine, ex-Pepper CEO Patrick Tuttle warned against “regulating the non-bank sector out of existence”, as well as depriving legitimate borrowers of funds and causing a sharp correction in house prices. Tuttle also claimed that non-banks had not been consulted by the Treasurer prior to the announcement.

The non-bank lenders MPA spoke to appeared to be unconcerned by the prospect of APRA oversight. Pepper Money said it was “business as usual”, claiming it had already taken note of APRA regulation of ADIs to ensure a balanced approach to lending, in addition to satisfying the demands of warehouse funders. Liberty CEO James Boyle supported the regulator’s efforts to lessen the risk of an inflated property market. Boyle argued that, with limited scale compared to the majors, non-banks already had to build balanced portfolios with diverse geographies, products and borrower types.

However, Boyle said, “as non-banks do not accept deposits, there is less need to apply measures primarily designed for depositors”. According to Boyle, the “very virtue of their difference” allows the non-bank sector to increase competition in the industry, providing better choice for customers. “We would say the government should continue to be sensitive with moves such as those proposed to not increase costs for consumers, stifle competition or shift responsibility for risk management from the regulated to the regulator.”

In MPA’s Brokers on Non-Banks survey, which will be published in August, hundreds of brokers were asked whether they’d continue using non-banks if they were regulated in the same way as banks.

The majority of brokers said they would, pointing out other advantages the non-banks have over the majors. As one Sydney broker explained, “they are proactive, adept and keen for business. Their hunger means that they meet the market and fill the niches the major lenders don’t”.

However, many brokers warned that already-high interest rates would become impossible to justify without correspondingly differing policies. “If non-banks were restricted by APRA, then likely their policy attractiveness would be lost,” commented a broker from Perth, “so the reasons to use them would be less. However, maybe they would keep their upfront approach, which I prefer to the majors’ ‘have to haggle to get a good deal’ approach.”

For decades non-banks have been trying to catch the eyes of consumers and brokers. Australia is only just beginning to wake up to its ‘shadow banking sector’, as Byres found at the Senate when he had to explain that shadow banking was “not illegal banking”. As APRA gradually elaborates on what ‘oversight’ really means, non-banks may discover their newfound popularity with investors is a double-edged sword.

APRA consults on changes to mutually owned ADIs’ capital framework

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has released for consultation a discussion paper on proposed revisions to the capital framework for mutually owned authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs) to enable them to directly issue Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital instruments.

In 2014, APRA developed a Mutual Equity Interest (MEI) framework for mutually owned ADIs that enables them to issue Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments that meet requirements for conversion into CET1 capital in certain circumstances. Because of their structure, mutually owned ADIs have traditionally not been able to issue ordinary shares that could qualify as CET1 capital.

The consultation announced today concerns proposed amendments to this MEI framework to allow mutually owned ADIs to issue CET1-eligible capital instruments directly. The proposed changes are intended to give mutually owned ADIs more flexibility in their capital management.

These proposed CET1-eligible capital instruments would share many of the same characteristics as ordinary shares and would, for example, be perpetual, subject to discretionary dividends and accounted for as equity. However, because these instruments are untested, APRA is proposing some restrictions on the amount that may be included in CET1 and, to accommodate the mutual corporate structure of issuing ADIs, proposes limits on MEI holders’ share of residual assets.

Following consideration of submissions received through this consultation, APRA anticipates it will release the final revised APS 111 in late 2017 for commencement as soon as practicable thereafter.

Australian Banks’ Stricter Capital Requirements Are Credit Positive – Moody’s

From Moody’s

On 19 July, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) announced that it will raise the minimum common equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio for banks. The stricter capital requirements will make the banking system more resilient to any weakening of credit conditions, a credit positive.

Australia’s four biggest banks, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a22), Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), National Australia Bank Limited (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), and Westpac Banking Corporation (Aa3/Aa3 stable, a2), which use internal ratings based models for calculating risk-weighted assets, will be most affected. APRA increased the four banks’ minimum CET1 ratio 150 basis points to 9.5%, including a 1% charge for domestic systemically important banks (D-SIBs). Although the higher capital requirements will take effect in early 2021, APRA said that it expects banks to exceed the new requirement and have CET1 ratios of 10.5% by 1 January 2020 at the latest.

The minimum CET1 ratio for Macquarie Bank Limited (A2 stable, baa1), which also uses an internal ratings-based approach but is not a D-SIB, was similarly raised 150 basis points to 8.5%, effective 1 January 2020. For all the other banks, which use standardized models, the minimum CET1 ratio is 7.5%, a 50 basis point increase.

The new minimum CET1 ratio is an incremental increase from the banks’ current capital levels. The APRA has for some time indicated that it would tighten capital rules, and our Australian bank ratings fully reflect that possibility. To meet a CET1 target of 10.5%, the four big banks will need to raise their CET1 ratios between 40 and 90 basis points from their reported levels at March 2017 (see Exhibit 1). That translates into an aggregate capital shortfall of about AUD9.1 billion. However, the banks’ normalized annual internal capital generation is already around AUD6.5-AUD7.5 billion after dividend payments and dividend reinvestments. Also, in practice, they may need less additional capital because they have been actively reducing their risk-weighted assets by changing their business mixes.

Macquarie Bank’s CET1 ratio was 11.1% as of March 2017, well above its new 8.5% minimum. Smaller banks subject to a 7.5% minimum also mostly have CET1 ratios exceeding the requirement, so any capital shortage for them will be minimal.

The tighter capital requirement reflects the APRA’s concern about Australian banks’ reliance on foreign wholesale funding, which makes them vulnerable to sudden shifts in foreign investor sentiment. Australian banks issue around 70% of their long-term debt and 40% of their short-term debt to foreign investors (see Exhibit 2).
 The APRA has also flagged further increases in capital requirements in 2021. The regulator plans to increase the risk weights of certain assets, particularly for investor property loans and higher loan-to-value ratio loans. Although loss rates on mortgages remain low, housing loans make up 60% of Australian banks’ loan portfolios. Furthermore, a high and rising level of household debt has elevated risks within the household sector, making Australian banks’ credit quality more vulnerable to a shock. APRA also stated that its assessment of bank capital assumes that a framework for total loss-absorbing capacity will be introduced at a later date.