Unhealthy competition in financial services?
When the National Australia Bank (NAB) late last month announced its acquisition of Aviva’s wealth management business, its documentation lodged with the Australian Securities Exchange noted that the transaction was subject to approval by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
With the transaction being worth a total of about $925 million, and with the acquisition of the Aviva business giving NAB/MLC arguably a dominant presence in the wealth management industry, it follows that a reference to the ACCC was mandatory.
And while many might suggest that ACCC approval of the transaction is a formality, it should not be. The best interests of the Australian financial services industry would be served by having the competition regulator take a very close look at the NAB acquisition of the Aviva business and its implications for both financial planners and consumers.
What is more, the NAB/Aviva transaction should not be looked at in isolation. It should be viewed in the context of other recent transactions, which have seen a diminution in the number of major brands in the market and, as a consequence, the number of clear-cut options available to planning practices and individual planners.
In the space of less than 12 months, the industry has been witness to a consolidation involving the merging of Australian Wealth Management and IOOF, followed by IOOF’s acquisition of Skandia, and now Aviva’s wealth management business seems likely to flow to NAB.
On top of these major transactions, there have been a number of smaller mergers and acquisitions, and Perpetual chief executive and Investment and Financial Services Association chair David Deverall has suggested that further merger and acquisition activity is inevitable.
The question that now needs to be asked is whether what is happening in the financial services industry will ultimately prove to be in the best interests of all concerned.
There can be no doubting that the transactions have made commercial sense to the companies involved, but the ACCC really needs to determine whether they have also served to undermine healthy competition, particularly where mid-tier players are concerned.
In assessing the issue, the ACCC might also care to consider the implications of the major banks having asserted their dominance on the back of tight liquidity and the Commonwealth bank deposits guarantee.
- Mike Taylor
AUTHOR
Mike Taylor
Recommended for you
In this week’s episode of Relative Return Insider, hosts Maja Garaca Djurdjevic and Keith Ford take a final look at the lay of the land ahead of the federal election as the latest polls predict a Labor victory, and what that could mean for Australians going forward.
In this week’s special edition of Relative Return Insider, we bring you outgoing Financial Services Minister Stephen Jones’ keynote from Momentum Media’s Election 2025 event, followed by a Q&A focused on the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes reforms.
In this week’s episode of Relative Return Unplugged, Dr Vladimir Tyazhelnikov from the University of Sydney’s School of Economics joins the show to break down the shifting sands of global trade dynamics and attempt to understand the way US President Donald Trump is employing tariffs.
In this week’s special episode of Relative Return Unplugged, we present shadow treasurer Angus Taylor’s address at Momentum Media’s Election 2025 event, followed by a Q&A covering the Coalition’s plans for the financial services sector.
