I cannot understand why the big 4 are different. Have they got different funding costs? Do you think that ANZ and Westpac will fall in line with CBA and NAB and eventually go down to 1%? Their standard variable before today were just about identical.
Rate decrease by: CBA & NAB 1%, WPAC .8%, ANZ .83% - Why the difference?
- Thread starter Nth Brisbanite
- Start date
I think CBA and NAB have a bigger deposit base = less reliance on external sources here and overseas. This translates into a slightly lower cost of funds overall.
That said, I think competition will bring them into line soon. Especially between the big banks the products can be quite similar and if the only difference is the rate, ANZ and WBC may lose the business.
-Dave
That said, I think competition will bring them into line soon. Especially between the big banks the products can be quite similar and if the only difference is the rate, ANZ and WBC may lose the business.
-Dave
mmmm im a bit more cynical.
Have you noticed from the previous 3 rate cuts, the banks have reduced by different amounts, and each time it has been a different bank who is the leader.
My gut feeling tells me that the banks are creating the perception of market competition, by allowing each bank in its turn to be the leader. If anyone cries foul, then the banks can point to different rate reductions at different times, thus natural competition and no need for the government to intervene
Have you noticed from the previous 3 rate cuts, the banks have reduced by different amounts, and each time it has been a different bank who is the leader.
My gut feeling tells me that the banks are creating the perception of market competition, by allowing each bank in its turn to be the leader. If anyone cries foul, then the banks can point to different rate reductions at different times, thus natural competition and no need for the government to intervene
mmmm im a bit more cynical.
Have you noticed from the previous 3 rate cuts, the banks have reduced by different amounts, and each time it has been a different bank who is the leader.
My gut feeling tells me that the banks are creating the perception of market competition, by allowing each bank in its turn to be the leader. If anyone cries foul, then the banks can point to different rate reductions at different times, thus natural competition and no need for the government to intervene
I tend to agree although CBA has been closer to the top more often. Unlike the previous few years, the banks have made the odd rate change without any move in the official cash rate. It would be suprising to see the current gap remain for too long.
If it were truly a consistent variation with no perceived "collusion" then one would argue GREAT, bout time that we had some competition !
The reality is that middle term ( 2 weeks to 3 mths) , the big 4 will be within a spit of each other again.
ta
rolf
The reality is that middle term ( 2 weeks to 3 mths) , the big 4 will be within a spit of each other again.
ta
rolf
I have to say it really peeves me when people whine about the lack of competition in Australian banking markets.
There is no shortage of small-bank and non-bank lenders in Australia.
If you've got proof of collusion then contact the ACCC and let them worry about it, but remember gut feelings and innuendo don't stand up in the Federal Court.
At the end of the day, if you're not happy with how your big bank is performing in terms of being competitive then at least be mature enough to realise that it isn't their fault that you're too lazy to get off your bum and take your business elsewhere.
There is no shortage of small-bank and non-bank lenders in Australia.
If you've got proof of collusion then contact the ACCC and let them worry about it, but remember gut feelings and innuendo don't stand up in the Federal Court.
At the end of the day, if you're not happy with how your big bank is performing in terms of being competitive then at least be mature enough to realise that it isn't their fault that you're too lazy to get off your bum and take your business elsewhere.
Last edited:
You're probably right, Rolf. Hope that Westpac and ANZ lowers theirs a bit more!!
There is no way the banks collude illegally, they would be crazy to try it. But they march to the same drummer, or sing from the same song sheet. It started in the eighties when Westpac found itself in trouble and had to start price gouging. Instead of taking advantage of the situation, the others just joined in and they have been like a group of cyclists in a road race ever since: each taking their turn up front.
The same would apply to Woolies and Coles. They have been "competing" for so long they are like a good dance couple: They don't need to talk.
Hey Mark_B
I think that's a tad harsh. It can cost a lot of $$ to move to another bank if you are xcolled for eg. I'm not particularly happy with my bank but I'm stuck with them 'coz they won't release my security yet.
Some of us simply can't afford the option you suggest....and for the record I'm NOT lazy.
I think that's a tad harsh. It can cost a lot of $$ to move to another bank if you are xcolled for eg. I'm not particularly happy with my bank but I'm stuck with them 'coz they won't release my security yet.
Some of us simply can't afford the option you suggest....and for the record I'm NOT lazy.
As Chillia says, the banks have lowered their rates by different amounts in the previous rate cuts. I think it was the last one that ANZ gave the highest rate cut, so now they have pulled back a bit. I don't think CBA has past on the full rate cut in previous rounds. So, I doubt that there is much difference between their actual rates.
Pen
Pen
No they are not. Rates have changed until today and I have just updated the site (you may have to refresh). The score is:
CBA = 0.67%
Westpac = 0.84%
NAB = 0.67%
ANZ = 0.84%
St George = 0.82%
I think ANZ & Westpac didn't pass on the full cut because they want to credit ration. They are both snowed under with business.
Hi Stuart
I suspect its not so much ration "credit".
I feel its more like they are just too busy. Recent chats at the coal face with local branch managers, the feedback we get is that there is bucket loads of short and middle term cash looking for a home.
In Anz's case they are plain over run with their low staff numbers, something that will soon be fixed when they cut back to just 80 % lend.
WBC is in a similar position but are still managing their workload in a reasonble fashion.
ta
rolf
I suspect its not so much ration "credit".
I feel its more like they are just too busy. Recent chats at the coal face with local branch managers, the feedback we get is that there is bucket loads of short and middle term cash looking for a home.
In Anz's case they are plain over run with their low staff numbers, something that will soon be fixed when they cut back to just 80 % lend.
WBC is in a similar position but are still managing their workload in a reasonble fashion.
ta
rolf
and there is a problem with this? the bank is a business to make money..
I'm sure you adjust your rents according to market forces to squeeze the most out of them..
There sure is a problem. We're all in the investment business to make money, however there's a destinctive line between making money & profiteering disguised as market forces.
mmmm im a bit more cynical.
Have you noticed from the previous 3 rate cuts, the banks have reduced by different amounts, and each time it has been a different bank who is the leader.
My gut feeling tells me that the banks are creating the perception of market competition, by allowing each bank in its turn to be the leader. If anyone cries foul, then the banks can point to different rate reductions at different times, thus natural competition and no need for the government to intervene
I thought I was the most cynical person here.
By the way; I reckon you are spot-on.
Similar threads
