Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 87

Bank capital in a post-FSI world

The Financial Services Inquiry (FSI), chaired by David Murray, is scheduled to release its final report in November 2014. From a bank capital perspective, there are two main issues:

  • mortgage risk-weightings, and
  • domestically systemically important banks (D-SIB) capital for banks that are ‘too big to fail’.

Mortgage risk-weightings

The FSI has shone a light on the stark differences between the risk-weightings the big four banks apply to mortgages vis-à-vis their smaller regional competitors. The advantage arises because major banks use sophisticated internal risk models with lower capital assumptions than the smaller banks which use standardised models. As David Murray observed in his 15 July 2014 speech: “Smaller banks face some regulatory disadvantages that reduce their competitiveness, especially higher risk weights for mortgages. The report identifies a range of options to promote competitive neutrality.

In its most recent submission to the FSI, APRA noted the distortion that these differences in risk-weightings created. Essentially, mortgage lending has been significantly more profitable for the major banks than other forms of lending.

On the notion of potentially reducing the risk-weightings for mortgages written by regional banks adopting the standardised approach, APRA went on to say: “There is no compelling reason to adopt policy changes that are weaker than the internationally agreed Basel framework in an attempt to address competitive concerns … Furthermore, it is undesirable to make changes to the prudential framework that would provide further incentives for residential mortgage finance over other forms of credit.

Other financial commentators have supported the argument for increasing mortgage risk-weightings. In fact, Christopher Joye wrote in The Australian Financial Review in July 2014: “Investors in major bank stocks priced on current leverage and returns would arguably suffer if these reforms were implemented, but depositors and bond-holders would be better off, given lower risks of default.

Too big to fail

The second issue relates to bank capital and moral hazard. Under the current regulations, APRA requires the major four banks to hold an incremental 1% in Common Equity Tier 1 CET1) capital (sometimes known as D-SIB capital) to reflect the implicit government guarantee the banks enjoy.

There is a view that David Murray may seek to shore up the Australian banking system once and for all by requiring an additional 1% to 2% in D-SIB capital. This would force all major banks to issue equity.

According to David Murray: “The [FSI Interim] report suggests that there may be a case for Government and regulators to do more to reduce resultant disruption and the size of the potential call on taxpayers. Options for change include higher regulatory capital requirements to further reduce the risk of failure … For this reason the committee has asked for views on the pros and cons of higher capital ratios – to reduce taxpayer exposure to failure.

Such increased capital requirements would be dilutive, but it is the least dilutive when valuations are stretched. From this perspective, now would be an opportune time for regulators to affect such an increase in D-SIB capital requirements.

Potential implications of the FSI

The implications of these potential changes to the capital requirements of the major banks will fall into one of the following four scenarios:

  • no change to any capital rules from the FSI
  • increase in the risk-weights for mortgages
  • increase in D-SIB capital for the major banks
  • both an increase in risk-weights for mortgages and an increase in D-SIB capital for the majors.

Montgomery believes that if the major Australian banks are required to adhere to the fourth scenario, for example, within a five-year time frame, this should not cause too much short-term discomfort for the sector.


David Buckland is the Chief Executive Officer of Montgomery Investment Management. This article is for general information purposes and does not constitute personal financial advice.



Leave a Comment:



What happened to our gold-plated bank capital position?

Are Australian bank boards fit for purpose?

10 reasons not to hold bank royal commission


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.


Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.