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!

HD Chart1

HD Chart1

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.

HD Charts2&3

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

Are Australian bank boards fit for purpose?

10 reasons not to hold bank royal commission

Is bank bias worth the risk?

banner

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

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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. 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.