Although his line of business was never clearly identified, it has been suggested by some scholars that Ebenezer Scrooge, the miserly grouch in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, was probably a banker or money lender.

Must…make…bigger…profits…Photo: The Australian

Many current bank customers and mortgage holders would more than likely agree with this assessment in the wake of the wave of anger in the past week over interest rate rises and bank profits.

Bashing banks has long been a favourite Australian sport, especially when loan repayment pressures bite customers and the “Big Four” institutions reveal the billions they have made.

But the unexpected 25 basis points rate increase by the Reserve Bank on Melbourne Cup Day, followed by the Commonwealth Bank’s quick move to hike its rate by 45 points was more than most betting Australians were prepared to gamble on.

Calls for greater government regulation and more competition among banks echoed through many of the comments to online news sites.

Riding the wave of dissatisfaction, both the Government and Opposition jockeyed for pole position arguing they had the answers and that they would curb the banks’ greed, but commenters were not entirely convinced about how much they were willing or able to do.

Joe Khoo of Brisbane wrote to The Courier-Mail: “Nothing meaningful will come out of Treasurer Wayne Swan’s threat of ‘reforms’ or Opposition spokesman Joe Hockey’s feigned outrage with our Big Four banks. They are both out to score political points. In 12 months the furore would be all but forgotten. What Australia needs is increased bank competition by welcoming overseas banks to this country.”

Commenting on news.com.au, Gen1977 of Melbourne felt a sense of personal powerlessness and thought urging customers to switch banks was a futile exercise. “Changing banks is costly, time consuming and inconvenient. And who’s to say the bank you switch to won’t increase their rates more than the Reserve rates in future? Banks should be regulated by the Government and not be allowed to increase their rates at will.”

Paolo-Andrea of Queensland did not think Government action to reduce or eliminate exit fees would have much effect on the banks. “It’s all very well for the Government to stop banks from having an exit fee but my worry is that the four large banks will somehow claw back this ‘lost fee’ through either other existing or newly-created fees.”

Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris only exacerbated the anger towards the banks when he declared his institution’s rate hike was part of dealing with commercial reality and that his job was not about being popular.

Sceptical of NSW responded on news.com.au: “Maybe, the criticism wouldn’t have come as such an outcry if they (the Commonwealth Bank) had not raised their rates by nearly twice as much as the RBA. Everybody knows that interest rates have to go up once in a while, and sometimes they even come down. But, let’s be honest, can he really whinge about how terrible the market is treating his bank if he can still post several-billion-dollar profits?”

Another commenter, Bebe, had a short and sharp retort to Ralph Norris shunning popularity: “You got that right. Destroying lives for pure greed certainly won’t make you popular.”

But Ado of Perth defended the banks’ pursuit of bigger profits, commenting to SBS Online: “Directors of companies, including the banks, are required by law to act in the best interests of the shareholders. I think that rather than spending our time and efforts to bash the banks for operating an effective business model, we could focus our efforts on educating/empowering Australian citizens to be less reliant on debt.”

The growing level of personal debt was mentioned by a number of other commenters as a source of concern and even frustration, as evidenced in a post by Michael Steane on Yahoo7: “I’m fed up with people who live beyond their means whining about paying interest. Don’t make yourself a slave to banks. Only buy what you can afford and develop some self-respect.”

Meanwhile, a story in The Courier-Mail reported retailers feared the latest interest rate hikes could hurt Christmas spending.

Nick of the Park of East Brisbane urged caution: “Yeah, the banks are bad guys. But be careful to side with the retailers. They are saying the banks are playing Scrooge and ruining Christmas. Just remember, the whole meaning of Christmas. The retailers just want your money - and in this case - your credit-card debt money.”

Perhaps the spectre of Ebenezer Scrooge is not just limited to the banks, but to wider society in Australia.

Most commented

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Barbara says:

      05:12am | 08/11/10

      I wish you would all stop picking on my boss Ralph. Sure being paid $320,000 per week is pretty good, but sometimes he works so late he is not even home for the 6 O’ clock news. And with electricity , groceries and even interests rates going up (yes Ralph has a 1.9 Million dollar loan too) it only leaves about $265,000 per week to live on.

    • acotrel says:

      06:50am | 08/11/10

      A minute ago we were all for the ‘free market economy’!  Now we’re experiencing the monetary consequences, we want to further regulate the banks?  What ever happened to all those right wing ideologues who believed in total freedom for individuals, and those corporations which legally pose as them?

    • Dash says:

      08:00am | 08/11/10

      Hi acotrel, Joe Hockey has made it clear that the LNP believes the best way to deal with the issues is to increase competition. Any regulation should try to break the cycle of price signaling between the banks. that is, encourage free market forces. i don’t see that at odds with the ideology you mention.

      In contrast, Mr Swan approved two bank mergers as treasurer, reducing competition in the banking sector. But now he miraculously wants to tell us he’s all for increased competition?

    • Lee Mazengarb says:

      09:51pm | 08/11/10

      acotrel, nothing wrong with a totally free and unregulated deregulated market but thats not what we got is it. The banks enjoy an unfair defense and protection from the government. In the US we have anittrust and anti monopoly regulations. No such thing here. Well there is but it doesnt seem to work or act like its namesake. Allow us to access foreign overseas banks for home loans, 4.5% interest rate for 25 years fixed, no fees, sounds good.

    • DameO says:

      06:39am | 08/11/10

      Suddenly it is the ALP working to keep the rich even richer, wasn’t that what the Libs were accused of? Rudd is a multi-millionaire and Gillard is as smart a chicken. Guess we know why the people are suffering under the ALP.

    • centurion48 says:

      07:14am | 08/11/10

      Apart from seeking to fan the flames of bank bashing, what was the point of this article?
      When you seek a loan from a bank you have three choices (unless you want to go down the Islamic banking route). You can apply for a fixed or variable loan, or a combination of the two. If you opt for a variable loan you accept that when the cost of money goes up then the interest rate will rise and when the cost of money goes down the interest rate will fall. It is not about the RBA rate.
      If people really want to feel stress then wait and see what it will be like when interest rates are significantly above 10%.
      People buy houses to make money and because they believe the hype that it is the great Australian dream, which they translate as the great Australian right to own a house. Get a grip folks. Your greed and misunderstanding of basic economics got you into this problem and you might just have to suffer some pain to get out of it.
      When you make a mistake just admit it, don’t blame the banks. They are in business to make money. They are not a public service. If you cannot afford your loan then go back to the bank and discuss it as soon as possible. The problem is not going to get better in the short term and the pain will only get worse, you will get more angry and continue to blame everybody except yourself.
      Bank executive salaries are an easy target. Sure, I think they are over the top but they run strong, profit-making businesses and produce good dividends for the owners of the business. And before you start knocking the shareholders, just remember that your superannuation fund is guaranteed to be significantly invested in that bank.
      And, before you ask, I have never been employed by a bank and don’t own CBA shares. I do have a bank account with CBA but don’t have any loan from them.

    • Craig Lambie says:

      07:56am | 08/11/10

      You have a good point there… We all own the banks, through or super, so if you don’t like the way it is being run then stand up and say something at the next AGM….

    • Dave says:

      11:14am | 08/11/10

      Wanting to own a house is “greed”? As in a single, uno, your own house?

      If that’s the case, we live in the third world.

    • Jimbob says:

      02:36pm | 08/11/10

      I don’t know of any other contractual agreement where one party can i arbitrarily increase the costs of the agreement and at the same time charge you a fee if you wish to break the contract?

      We all accept a variable rate loan is just that, variable. However, there is an implicit understanding throughout recent history that rates follow the reserve. The recent break with that understanding is the source of the angst….

      This rate rise is nothing more than profiteering.

    • Gerard says:

      06:07pm | 08/11/10

      Centurion, saying that my super fund holds shares in the major banks kind of undermines your point about financial responsibility. If it wasn’t for the government’s compulsory 9% super legislation I wouldn’t even be in a super fund. I only ‘own’ shares in the banks because the government has decreed that I am not legally responsible for managing my own money.

    • jf says:

      08:24am | 09/11/10

      No Dave, wanting to own a house is not greed.

      Owning a house that is beyond your needs and/or means is. Not to forget the new car in the driveway, the plasma television and the playstation.

    • John C says:

      08:30am | 08/11/10

      The Government decided that additional tax should be paid by the mining companies because they utilised a resource that bel9onged to all Australians - our minerals.

      The banks also use a national resource - the guarantees of the Australian people that they will not fail. These guarantees are both express and implied and provide the banks with protections against a risk that other businesses do not have. This provides bank shareholders and bank employees including the well paid executives with an advantage over the shareholders and employees of other businesses.

      I realise that it is in the nation’s interests to provide these guarantees but it is equally in the nation’s interest that our natural resources of minerals should be exploited.

      It logically follows that a tax on excess profits, similar to that applied to mining companies, should be levied against any bank which has the express or implied guarantee of the Australian nation.
      It logically follows.

    • Bruce says:

      09:18pm | 08/11/10

      John C:  The only problem with a tax on excess profits on the banks is that they will pass this cost onto the customers. Much like the old debits and credits tax. I think we need to be carefull what we wish for. The banks are not afraid of governments. Even if new laws were introduced, the banks will just work with what laws they are given, then work their way around the law legally. Not like many businesses, the banks re-assess their financial and legal position vertually on an hour by hour, day by day basis.

    • Biteme says:

      10:13am | 08/11/10

      You guys do understand the biggest shareholders of the big four banks, are the big four banks. Yes Westpac, has shares in NAB, and NAB has shares in CBA, and CBA has shares in ANZ and so it goes on and on.
      Its like the Sri Lanken Cricket Team placing bets for Australia to win the ODI.

    • George says:

      11:38am | 08/11/10

      I’m looking forward to rising interest rates and seeing all the idiots who paid far too much for their grossly overvalued properties choke on their bloated mortgages.

      These are the same people who drove house prices up by 20% to unaffordable levels over the last two years and they now have what’s coming to them.

      Hopefully the housing bubble will very soon burst and people will once again be able to afford a home.

      The First Home Buyers grant is actually a misnomer.

      It is actually a home seller’s grant as it merely causes the first home buyer to pay a much higher price which goes straight to the seller’s pocket.

    • Judge says:

      02:13pm | 08/11/10

      I think there’s a name for people who get enjoyment from other people’s misfortune. What wonderful citizens they are. So much for good old Aussie mateship eh?

      Unless you have detailed knowledge of these “idiots’” circumstances you have no right to be making judgements on people.

      Sounds like you have some issues which could be solved channelled your energies into addressing your own shortcomings as opposed to hating on others

    • jess says:

      12:21pm | 08/11/10

      When did it become acceptable for articles on news sites to just be a collection of comments from readers? Disgraceful “journalism” becoming all too common.

    • Scott says:

      12:40pm | 08/11/10

      Hockey’s Profiteering From All Of Us.

      As Financial Services Minister Hoe Hockey achieved very little in the way of significant banking reform, admitting in 2001 he could “only write to the banks & urge them to take action”. In April 2008 ASIC issued Report 125: A Review of Mortgage Entry & Exit Fees. As Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey has had access to this review and for two & half years has done nothing - until now.

      Why now Joe? This is Hockey’s attempt at a profile lift - a possible last grab for power, nothing more.

      With his wife a senior banking executive herself & arguably among the highest paid Australians in the country, Joe Hockey’s not in it for the little guy, but he’d like us all to think that he is. Whilst this government is falling short on so many fronts, what the country doesn’t need is a career poilitician pretending to implement genuine reform. History speaks volumes Joe & the voters are not the fools you seem to take them for!

    • Against the Man says:

      06:27pm | 08/11/10

      Why is the Gillard and Swan robot suddenly interested in the banks? To distract us from the fact they are failing in all other areas. Worst PM and government ever!

    • jf says:

      08:41am | 09/11/10

      “Destroying lives for pure greed certainly won’t make you popular.””

      They are no more destroying lives than any other person providing goods and service providers that you use each and every day (I don’t see that enabling the two million people with mortgages the ability to buy a home as destroying their lives. What would they have done without the bank?)

      Furthermore, the banks are seeking a smaller margin than most of those businesses. Their margin is smaller than the doctor or dentist you are going to use, the car salesman that you buy from, the petrol station you buy from, the travel agent you book your holidays through, the grocer you buy your fruit and vegetables from, the butcher, the independent book seller.

      Every business is entitled to seek a return on their capital. The banks earn less of a return on capital than most large companies and way less than any small business that you can think of. And fair enough, their risk is less.

      As to senior executive salaries (banker or otherwhise) they are obscene. However, I don’t see mass hysteria because obscenely high doctors incomes make health care hard to access or very very expensive. When surgeons are regularly earning in excess of $1m something is wrong. Particularly when they are protected by the most powerful union in the land (the AMA) and their businesses are secured by the twin forces of monopoly power (the colleges) and guaranteed income (Medicare).

      However, we live in a free-market. This free market brings us more than it takes from us. From basic personal freedoms, to advanced healthcare and education, a very high standard of living, literacy and so on. Those same freedoms that allow someone to earn a high income (obscene or deserved) enable us, as shareholders, to turn up and vote no when an executive income is higher than it should be.

    • M says:

      09:15am | 09/11/10

      Your comments on returns are not correct and fail to point out a significant difference. Margins are not a fair comparison between banks and other businesses as their businesses are not the same ‘shape’ as other businesses. A reasonable comparison would be return on equity. If we compare on the basis of return on equity then we should also adjust for risk. Australian banks are in receipt of an implicit taxpayer guarantee. As such they are closer to risk free than any other Australian business except a government owned business entity like say, Sydney Water. On that basis, the Bank’s returns should approximate the return Sydney Water makes. The bank returns (19-20%) exceed Sydney Water returns (4.1%). The salaries of bank executives exceed those of Sydney Water executives. Does that make sense to you?

      Banks do not operate in a free market-it is a (government policy sponsored) oligopoly. If they did operate in a free market your comments would have merit.

      Comparing a bank executive’s salary to a doctor’s is disingenuous. A doctor is actually a sole trading entrepreneur generally working in a freer market than a bank-though I would grant you that some of the ‘guilds’ limit new practicioner entry. Bank executives are the ultimate fat cat bureaucrats.

    • jf says:

      03:48pm | 14/11/10

      “Your comments on returns are not” - how so? Feel free to be specific.

      Whilst you may not agree with my comparisons however, I did consider the difference in risk profiles in making my comments and specifically said so. And yes, risk matters. The risk weighted return for banks is not unreasonable. If it were any lower the banks would struggle to attract capital and then we’d really be in the shit.

      As to executive salaries - I’m not sure disingenuous is the word that you meant to use so long as you understand that point that I was trying to make. However, for the sake of clarity, I was merely trying to demonstrate that doctors are extremely highly paid but that little attention is paid to that issue. Certainly, if you compare the average wage of a senior banker with tertiary qualifications, I am confident you’ll find that the average doctor earns significantly more, and for almost zero risk.

      I’m not trying to justify the extreme salaries of execs in Top 20 companies. I agree that they are overpaid, but that is another argument with complexities all of its own. Incidentally, it’s not just Bank Execs that earn obscene salaries.

      Furthermore, a doctor is rarely a sole trader let along an entrepreneur. For a start, those that are in business for themselves typically structure themselves within a complex web of pty ltd and trust structures for tax and asset protection reasons. However, most work for private health companies or the public service. Describing a doctor as an entrepreneur is a stretch given that they have a guaranteed income through Medicare and chronic shortage of supply due to the shortage of specialists due to the controls that the Colleges . I’ll assume that you didn’t understand that lest someone were to accuse you of being disingenuous.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

. @mcguiremi is journo of the year! #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

.@mariamosco @msmarto Super Smarto. And Shirley Stott Despoja into the Hall of Fame #samediaawards

ToryShepherd

Best print journo to @mcguiremi woot! #samediaawards

Anthony Sharwood

The AFL needs a special draw song. Feels weird having no club song at the end of #AFLSwansFreo. But what song?

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter