Worried about price gouging? For banks, there’s a simple solution

Does it feel like you’re being charged more for all sorts of things these days, from groceries to banking? Turns out, you’re right.

While we might be more likely to remember prices that go up than prices that go down, the very best evidence – assembled by Australia’s Treasury, the federal government’s lead economic adviser – says your suspicions are right. We really are being charged more than we used to be two decades ago.

Coupled with the latest profit reports from Australia’s biggest supermarkets and banks, including Tuesday’s half-year results from Coles, it suggests we are contributing more to company profits than we used to.

Climbing price markups

The Treasury estimates show in the 13 years between 2003-04 and 2016-17, the average price markup – the difference between the cost of a product and its selling price – across all Australian industries climbed 6%.

That’s extra profit, taken from your wallet, going to the people selling you things.

Those Treasury estimates are contained in a background paper prepared for the competition inquiry being undertaken by a panel including Productivity Commission chair Danielle Wood, former Competition and Consumer Commission chief Rod Sims, and business leader David Gonski.

At the same time, the average share of each industry held by its biggest four firms edged up from 41% to 43%.

Profit margins are also higher here than in more competitive markets overseas.

This is true in banking, where the big four have taken over St George, BankWest, and the Bank of Melbourne – and are about to take over Suncorp.

It’s also true in supermarkets, where the big two, Woolworths and Coles, have taken over or seen off Franklins, Bi-Lo and Safeway.

Bigger profit margins than overseas

Coles supermarkets reported earnings before adjustments of A$1.73 billion on sales of $19.778 billion in the half year to December – a profit margin of 8.7%.

Last week, Woolworths supermarkets reported earnings of $2.45 billion on sales of $25.648 billion – a margin of 9.6%.

By way of comparison, the dominant UK supermarket group, Sainsbury’s, has a profit margin of 6.13%.

In banking, the Commonwealth Bank has just reported a return on equity (profit as a proportion of shareholders’ funds) of 13.8%. National Australia Bank reported 12.9%.

While on a par with the big banks overseas, those recent returns are a good deal higher than CommBank’s 11.5% and NAB’s 10.7% reported two years ago.

Little hope for groceries

For supermarkets, there’s not a lot the government can do, apart from launching an inquiry, and perhaps giving Australian authorities the power to break up firms that abuse their market power.

But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has said he isn’t keen on giving Australian authorities the sort of powers available to authorities in the United States and the United Kingdom, saying (incongruously) Australia is “not the old Soviet Union”.

And doing anything short of that would be unlikely to have much effect. Australia’s two supermarket giants have invested a fortune in high-tech warehouses and distribution systems, which new rivals would be hard-pressed to match.

Hope for more competitive banking

But for banks it’s altogether different. Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has come up with the idea, and it’s a beauty.

It’s for the government to provide a low-cost banking service – expanding on services it already offers.

The costs would be so low, other banks might decide to add features and resell them in the same way as resellers sell mobile phone and NBN services.

The primary function of any bank is to provide a numbered account into which Australians can deposit and withdraw funds.

The Australian Tax Office does this already, at an incredibly low cost.

The tax office gives every working Australian a tax file number. Employers deposit money into these accounts, and – should the tax office owe a refund – taxpayers withdraw them.

Some taxpayers ensure their tax is overpaid, so they withdraw later.

Denniss describes it as a bank account with the world’s clumsiest interface.

The government could offer bank loans

It wouldn’t be much of a stretch from improving that interface to offering government loans.

In fact, government loans are already provided in some circumstances: such as to retirees with home equity through the home equity access scheme, and to Centrelink recipients through advance payments.

It woudn’t be much more of stretch to provide loans more broadly, at an incredibly low administrative cost. The government already lends against the value of homes.

Back in the days when the federal government owned the Commonwealth Bank, it had to cover the high costs of running bricks and mortar branches.

Freed from those costs, the government could now offer a low-cost, technology-enabled basic banking service that would tempt us away from the big four banks – unless they offered better value.

Of course it would cost money, although a lot of it has already been spent setting up the system of tax file numbers and accounts. And of course the banks would hate the idea. That would be the point.

But doing what we can to stop Australians being overcharged is important, not only for wage earners but also for businesses.

The competition inquiry the government has launched is a good start. It shouldn’t be frightened about where it might lead.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>

What would a vehicle efficiency standard for new cars cost – or save – Australian drivers?

Opposition leader Peter Dutton says Labor’s proposed fuel efficiency standard for new cars would push up the price of a Mazda CX30 “by about $19,000”.

Given that right now the Mazda CX30 costs A$33,140, that’d be one hell of an increase.

So what should we really expect if Australia finally introduces fuel efficiency standards here – decades after the US and Europe? What could it cost us upfront for buying new cars? And how much could we save later in lower fuel bills?

Here’s what we do know, based on decades of international experience, new federal government analysis – and even cost estimates from a previous Coalition government.

Car efficiency standards are common overseas

Labor is proposing a so-called new vehicle efficiency standard of the kind proposed by the Coalition in 2016, championed by the Coalition in 2022, and common in the rest of the world.

Here’s how it works in Europe, the United States and Japan, and just about every advanced economy other than Russia and Australia.

Every car manufacturer has to meet an average efficiency standard for the new vehicles it sells each year, whether expressed in miles per gallon (the US) or carbon dioxide emitted per kilometre (Europe).

Europe has been doing it since 2009. When it tightened its standards in 2020, average CO₂ emissions of new passenger cars sold fell 12% and a further 12.5% the following year.

In the US, fuel efficiency has doubled

The United States has been doing it since 1975.

In that time, the average efficiency of its new cars has doubled, and it is about to tighten standards further.

After decades of being the odd one out, Australian passenger cars on average use 20% more fuel than passenger cars in the US.

And that isn’t only because Australians like SUVs and utes. In both Australia and the US, SUVs and utes account for four out of every five new light vehicles sold.

But the new SUVs and utes sold in Australia produce on average 24% more emissions than those sold in the United States. The new smaller cars sold in Australia produce 31% more.

Standards change the mix of what’s sold

Efficiency standards don’t prevent carmakers from selling inefficient vehicles. What they do is ensure they make those vehicles more efficient, or balance their sales with sales of more efficient ones.

At the moment, it means the vehicles sold in the US and elsewhere get advanced emissions technologies not generally offered in Australia.

It’s easy to understand why. With efficient vehicles prized in the US, Europe, and other places, because they are needed to balance up the sales of less efficient vehicles, they get diverted to those places – rather than Australia.

In the words of Volkswagen Group Australia chief Michael Bartsch, it makes Australia a “dumping ground” for older and less efficient vehicles.

Labor has put forward three options for targets: a slow start, a fast start, and its preferred option: “fast but flexible”.

Its preferred option would require carmakers selling in Australia to catch up with the standards of countries including the United States by 2028.

For motorists, the biggest benefit is fuel savings – calculated at A$107 billion between now and 2050. Against that sit vehicle technology, electricity and battery replacement costs of half as much, leaving motorists a long way ahead.

But would it push up the price of cars, as Dutton suggests?

‘No systemic, statistically significant increase’

The government’s consultation paper says the evidence consistently shows no price impact or a negligible price impact.

But common sense suggests it’ll make the price of gas guzzlers somewhat more expensive, and lean, fuel-efficient machines less expensive, as carmakers adjust the mix of what they trying to sell.

When the Coalition looked at this back in 2016, it found the standard it proposed would increase the price of an average-performing petrol passenger vehicle by between $800 and $2,000, and the price of an average-performing diesel light commercial vehicle by between $750 and $2,000.

At the petrol price at the time, $1.30 per litre – far less than we’re paying now – motorists would have been ahead after four years.

Maybe Labor’s plan will push up car prices more than the Coalition’s 2016 plan, because it is more ambitious, as Dutton suggests. Or maybe it will push up prices by less because vehicle technology has improved.

In the US, a statistical analysis of prices from 2003 to 2021 found “no systemic, statistically significant increase in inflation-adjusted vehicle prices” during two decades in which standards were tightened and fuel economy improved 30%.

And standards will need to tighten. Cars and other light vehicles account for 13% of Australia’s carbon emissions. Both this government – and its Coalition predecessor – committed to cutting Australia’s net emissions to zero by 2050.

Without vehicles pulling their weight, along with heavy industry and electricity, we won’t get there.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>

How Albanese could tweak negative gearing to build more new homes

There are two things the prime minister needs to get into his head about tax. One is that saying he won’t make any further changes no longer works. The other is that negative gearing doesn’t do much to get people into homes.

Anthony Albanese seemed to have taken the first point on board when he spoke to The Insiders on Sunday.

Rather than promising flat-out not to change the rules around negative gearing, he merely said he was

supportive of the current rules, we have not considered changes to them

But he was less careful when it came to the virtues of negative gearing. He said there was

a whole lot of analysis that says they encourage investment in housing, the key when it comes to housing is housing supply.

His official advisers in the treasury don’t think negative gearing does much to increase the supply of housing – or, if they do, they omitted it from the six-page briefing note headed “negative gearing”, prepared to help the treasurer answer questions about it in parliament.

Our rules reward bad management

Negative gearing is a particularly Australian tax benefit, which – unlike in other countries – benefits dud landlords: those who can’t make money by renting out properties.

If they lose money (by paying out more in interest, maintenance and other expenses than they are receiving in rent) we let them offset that loss, not only against income from other investments, but also against income from their wage or salary.

It means they can cut their wage for tax purposes, cutting the tax they pay on it. And at the same time, they can hang on to a property they can later sell for a profit, which will be taxed at only half the normal rate, thanks to Australia’s 50% discount on capital gains.

It isn’t allowed in the United Kingdom or the United States. There, if you are a landlord who can’t make money, you can offset your losses against profits from other investments – but not against your wage.

In Canada you can offset rental losses against wages, but there must have been an “an intention to make a profit”. That would probably rule out most Australian negative gearers.

Most gearers don’t build homes

In Australia, an astounding one million of us negatively gear – more than one in nine taxpayers. In 2020-21 they claimed losses amounting to $8.7 billion – 3.5% of the income tax collected – meaning if they didn’t do it (if they didn’t claim for what seem to be deliberate losses) the rest of us could pay less tax.

What Albanese said on the weekend was half right. Negative gearing encourages investment. Most months, more than one in three new home loans is for an investment property.

But most of those loans don’t increase supply – the thing Albanese says matters.

That’s because the overwhelming bulk of investor home loans go to “investors” planning to buy existing homes – to bid against and likely beat would-be owner-occupiers.

In December 2023, only 23% of the loans to investors was used to build a home or buy a newly-built home. In November only 19%.

---

---

As a means of getting more homes built, negative gearing leaks like a sieve. As a means of ensuring Australians continue to rent, rather than buy, it’s effective.

In the 20 or so years since the headline rate of capital gains tax was halved, supercharging negative gearing, the proportion of Australian households renting has climbed from 26% to 30%. If those extra renters become owners, an extra 400,000 Australians would be in homes they could call their own.

How to get better value from gearing

The really bizarre thing is that Albanese has it in his power to ensure negative gearing does exactly what he said it did – supercharge the building of houses.

All he would need to do is what Labor promised to do in 2016 and again in 2019. In those elections, Bill Shorten went to voters promising to limit the use of negative gearing to newly-built homes.

As Shorten put it, taxpayers would

continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their wage income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing.

The sieve would no longer leak. Every dollar of tax lost to a negative gearer would help build a home.

What would have happened if Shorten had got his way: if Australia both focused the use of negative gearing and cut the capital gains discount as he had proposed?

Modelling just published in Australian Economic Papers finds the share of households who own their home rather than renting it would have climbed 4.7%.

That’s security worth having, especially if it is accompanied by more homes.

An idea whose time is coming?

Australia’s Treasury has begun publishing estimates of the cost of the present unfocused system of negative gearing. Its latest, released last week, puts the cost at $2.7 billion per year, to which should probably be added a chunk of the $19 billion per year lost as a result of the capital gains concession.

The estimates are new. Until Jim Chalmers became treasurer, his department didn’t publish estimates of the cost of rental deductions.

Chalmers is far from the first treasurer to be curious about what the concession does. Scott Morrison expressed concern about the “excesses” of negative gearing.

And Morrison’s predecessor, Joe Hockey, said on leaving parliament that negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing, so “there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property”.

Albanese is normally cautious. But as he is showing us right now with his rejigged Stage 3 tax cuts, there are times when he is not.

If he really wants to throw everything he has got at building more homes, he knows what to do.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>

Mortgage and inflation pain to ease, but only slowly: how 31 top economists see 2024

Wes Mountain/The Conversation, CC BY-ND

A panel of 31 leading economists assembled by The Conversation sees no cut in interest rates before the middle of this year, and only a slight cut by December, enough to trim just $55 per month off the cost of servicing a $600,000 variable-rate mortgage.

The panel draws on the expertise of leading forecasters at 28 Australian universities, think tanks and financial institutions – among them economic modellers, former Treasury, International Monetary Fund and Reserve Bank officials, and a former member of the Reserve Bank board.

Its forecasts paint a picture of weak economic growth, stagnant consumer spending, and a continuing per-capita recession.

The average forecast is for the Reserve Bank to delay cutting its cash rate, keeping it near its present 4.35% until at least the middle of the year, and then cutting it to 4.2% by December 2024, 3.6% by December 2025 and 3.4% by December 2026.

---

---

The gentle descent would deliver only three interest rate cuts by the end of next year, cutting $274 from the monthly cost of servicing a $600,000 mortgage and leaving the cost around $1,100 higher than it was before rates began climbing.

Six of the experts surveyed expect the Reserve Bank to increase rates further in the first half of the year, while 20 expect no change and three expect a cut.

Former head of the NSW treasury Percy Allan said while the Reserve Bank would push up rates in the first half of the year to make sure inflation comes down, it would be forced to relent in the second half of the year as unemployment grows and the economy heads towards recession.

Warwick McKibbin, a former member of the Reserve Bank board, said the board would push up rates twice more in the first half of the year as insurance against inflation before leaving them on hold.

Former Reserve Bank of Australia chief economist Luci Ellis, who is now chief economist at Westpac, expects the first cut no sooner than September, believing the board will wait to see clear evidence of further falls in inflation and economic weakening before it moves.

---

---

Inflation to keep falling, but more gradually

Today’s Reserve Bank board meeting will consider an inflation rate that has come down faster than it expected, diving from 7.8% to 4.1% in the space of a year.

The newer more experimental monthly measure of inflation was just 3.4% in the year to December, only points away from the Reserve Bank’s target of 2–3%.

But the panel expects the descent to slow from here on, with the standard measure taking the rest of the year to fall from 4.1% to 3.5% and not getting below 3% until late 2025.

Economists Chris Richardson and Saul Eslake say while inflation will keep heading down, the decline might be slowed by supply chain pressures from the conflict in the Middle East and the boost to incomes from the tax cuts due in July.

---

---

Slower wage growth, higher unemployment

While the panel expects wages to grow faster than the consumer price index, it expects wages growth to slip from around 4% in 2023 to 3.8% in 2024 and 3.4% in 2025 as higher unemployment blunts workers’ bargaining power.

But the panel doesn’t expect much of an increase in unemployment. It expects the unemployment rate to climb from its present 3.9% (which is almost a long-term low) to 4.3% throughout 2024, and then to stay at about that level through 2025.

All but two of the panel expect the unemployment rate to remain below the range of 5–6% that was typical in the decade before COVID.

Economic modeller Janine Dixon said the “new normal” between 4% and 5% was likely to become permanent as workers embraced flexible arrangements that allow them to stay in jobs in a way they couldn’t before.

Cassandra Winzar, chief economist at the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, said the government’s commitment to full employment was one of the things likely to keep unemployment low, along with Australia’s demographic transition as older workers leave the workforce.

---

---

Slower economic growth, per-capita recession

The panel expects very low economic growth of just 1.7% in 2024, climbing to 2.3% in 2025. Both are well below the 2.75% the treasury believes the economy is capable of.

All but one of the forecasts are for economic growth below the present population growth rate of 2.4%, suggesting that the panel expects population growth to exceed economic growth for the second year running, extending Australia’s so-called per capita recession.

---

---

The lacklustre forecasts raise the possibility of what is commonly defined as a “technical recession”, which is two consecutive quarters of negative economic somewhere within a year of mediocre growth.

Taken together, the forecasters assign a 20% probability to such a recession in the next two years, which is lower than in previous surveys.

But some of the individual estimates are high. Percy Allen and Stephen Anthony assign a 75% and 70% chance to such a recession, and Warren Hogan a 50% chance.

Hogan said when the economic growth figures for the present quarter get released, they are likely to show Australia is in such a recession at the moment.

The economy barely grew at all in the September quarter, expanding just 0.2% and was likely to have shrunk in the December quarter and to shrink further in this quarter.

The panel expects the US economy to grow by 2.1% in the year ahead in line with the International Monetary Fund forecast, and China’s economy to grow 5.4%, which is lower than the International Monetary Fund’s forecast.

Weaker spending, weak investment

The panel expects weak real household spending growth of just 1.2% in 2014, supported by an ultra-low household saving ratio of close to zero, down from a recent peak of 19% in September 2021.

Mala Raghavan of The University of Tasmania said previous gains in income, rising asset prices and accumulated savings were being overwhelmed by high inflation and rising interest rates.

Luci Ellis expected the squeeze to continue until tax and interest rate cuts in the second half of the year, accompanied by declining inflation.

The panel expects non-mining investment to grow by only 5.1% in the year ahead, down from 15%, and mining investment to grow by 10.2%, down from 22%.

Johnathan McMenamin from Barrenjoey said private and public investment had been responsible for the lion’s share of economic growth over the past year and was set to plateau and fade as a driver of growth.

Home prices to climb, but more slowly

The panel expects home price growth of 4.6% in Sydney during 2024 (down from 11.4% in 2024) and 3.1% in Melbourne, down from 3.9% in 2024.

ANZ economist Adam Boyton said decade-low building approvals and very strong population growth should keep demand for housing high, outweighing a drag on prices from high interest rates. While high interest rates have been restraining demand, they are likely to ease later in the year.

---

---

In other forecasts, the panel expects the Australian dollar to stay below US$0.70, closing the year at US$0.69, it expects the ASX 200 share market index to climb just 3% in 2024 after climbing 7.8% in 2023, and it expects a small budget surplus of A$3.8 billion in 2023-24, followed by a deficit of A$13 billion in 2024-25.

The budget surplus should be supported by a forecast iron ore price of US$114 per tonne in December 2024, down from the present US$130, but well up on the US$105 assumed in the government’s December budget update.

---

The Conversation’s Economic Panel

Click on economist to see full profile.

Download the answers as XLS PDF

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more >>