Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 156

The value of wealth management for Australian banks

Arguments over the vertical integration of wealth management across advice, administration and asset management continue as a political and economic issue. After poring over bank results recently and seeing how involved the banks are in the business of managing Australia’s investments, this article looks at the funds management landscape in Australia, and in particular the dominance by the largest players.

Influence of the major institutions

The wealth management businesses of the major banks (plus AMP) include funds management, life insurance, general insurance, investment administration platforms and financial advice. The businesses are attractive for the banks due to the government mandated growth from rising compulsory superannuation contributions and because wealth management earnings carry a low capital charge. This attraction has increased with the $19 billion of capital raised in 2015 to meet tougher capital adequacy rules.

Changes to capital requirements make funds management earnings more attractive and increase the cost of lending to business and home loans. When a bank makes a standard home loan with a 70% loan to value ratio (LVR), APRA requires that the bank holds approximately $2.25 in capital for every $100 lent. This rises to $5 for every $100 for a loan to a business due to a higher risk weighting. Mathematically, when a bank is required to quarantine more capital to conduct activities, their return on equity (ROE) declines. Faced with higher capital requirements from regulators globally, earnings from wealth management can boost the bank’s ROE.

About 10% of bank profits come from wealth management

In the 2015 financial year, the four major trading banks in aggregate earned $30 billion, representing an increase of 5% on 2014. In 2015, approximately 10% of bank profits or $2.7 billion were attributable to wealth management, with CBA (Colonial First State) and Westpac (BT) gaining a higher percentage than the Melbourne-based banks. In the Aurora Dividend Income Fund, we have our exposure to wealth management indirectly via positions in the banks, rather than in listed wealth managers such as Perpetual or AMP. This results in buying $1 of wealth management earnings on a price to earnings (PE) of 13 times rather than 16 times!

Vertical integration clips the ticket at three stages

Essentially, the wealth management industry comprises a value chain of advice (financial advisers), portfolio administration (platforms) and manufacturing (funds management). The major financial institutions have captured a dominant market share in these three links via acquisitions and technology expenditure. From the below chart on the left, the four major banks plus AMP and IOOF have financial relationships with 60% of the financial planners in Australia. Their market share has been increasing with acquisitions (Count acquired by CBA for example) and heightened compliance requirements in favour of the large institutions over smaller practices.

Investment platforms are the ‘middle man’ in the process, connecting the fund manager to the adviser and providing administration services and tax reporting for a client’s portfolio of managed funds, shares and cash. Platforms generally charge around 0.3-0.6% of funds under management annually. Whilst this may not sound glamorous, it has been a lucrative path to capturing over 85% of this market.

Finally, the major financial institutions have also been successful in actually managing the money. The above chart on the right demonstrates the dominance that the large institutions enjoy in ‘manufacturing’ the investment products or funds for sale to retail investors. Currently the major banks plus AMP manage almost 80% of the retail funds under management.

Negatives for the banks

Whilst this sounds like a solid way to supplement bank profits in an environment of relatively anaemic credit growth and rising bad debts, the ownership of wealth management businesses by the banks do pose some risks.

Aside from the volatility in investment returns, wealth management businesses have the potential to deliver adverse headlines. Over the last year, both CBA and Macquarie Bank have received ‘enforceable undertakings’ from ASIC and face political enquiries related to allegedly fraudulent behavior and bad financial advice from the banks financial planners.

Indeed, in 2015 CBA spent $522 million in advertising building its banking brands. A portion of the goodwill generated is no doubt dissipated by headlines detailing ASIC probes into the bank’s financial planning or insurance divisions. The banks are clearly concerned that negative activities occurring in wealth management do not spill over to damage their core banking brands that generate the bulk of their profits.

Our view as an investor and a boutique manager

The major financial players have not built these vertically integrated wealth platforms (advice, investment accounting and funds management) to see large amounts of value being ‘leaked’’ to service providers outside the network. This naturally creates strong incentives to recommend the house products over independent providers, or favour house products over external products with similar or even slightly superior characteristics.

As an investor in the major banks, we would prefer that they keep as much of the value in-house to boost payments to shareholders. However, as the fund manager of an independent boutique investment firm, I have a strong personal incentive to see funds being leaked out of the control of the major players.

 

Hugh Dive is Senior Portfolio Manager at Aurora Funds Management. This article is general information and does not address the personal circumstances of any individual.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Why 'boring' Big Four banks remain attractive

Who gets the gold stars this bank reporting season?

Are Australian bank boards fit for purpose?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
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. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. 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.