THE DISTILLERY: At the NAB-AXA altar

Now let's get the important stuff out of the way first thing this morning. According to the Financial Times "the price of barley has doubled in the past six weeks because of the Russian drought's damage to the country's wheat crop". But it goes on to say that "malting barley, used in beer, will rise." This is the really serious price inflation. The paper says European feed barley has risen to 210 euros a tonne, up 130 per cent from 90 euros a tonne in mid-June (about 215 euros overnight). The latest price puts it even with milling wheat prices in Europe, a sign of just how crazy the grains market is becoming. Australia is a leading grower and exporter of barley, especially malting grain for beer in Japan. And a friend in Italy says there are reports there that the very hot weather (not a drought) has cut this year's tomato crop by 20 per cent. More expensive pasta and pizza, and sauce, Oh, no!

So deep down, who cares about AXA/NAB and their desperate attempts to keep the relationship alive? The bid has been going on for so long that it seems time for the two companies to get divorced, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. An awful lot of columnists have taken it upon themselves to say something this morning about the latest effort from NAB and AXA to convince the Church of Competition (aka the ACCC) and Pastor Graeme Samuel, to bless their union.

For example The Sydney Morning Herald's Ian Verrender isn't happy with the disclosure: "So much for the regulations surrounding stock exchange trading. Last Thursday, AXA Asia Pacific suspended itself from trading pending a big announcement. But yesterday's release – that National Australia Bank had reached agreement with junior funds manager IOOF to help overcome competition issues with NAB's proposed purchase of AXA AP – was one of the worst kept secrets on the market. Not only that, neither NAB nor IOOF sought a suspension, making the AXA AP application appear either mildly hysterical or wildly optimistic."

And John Durie in The Australian online yesterday was an unhappy camper after the latest announcement from the ACCC on the NAB/AXA wedding vows. He wrote that the "move is an unsatisfactory response to a particularly unsatisfactory piece of competition policy administration. Hopefully come September when the election is safely finished, the ACCC finally comes clean and answers the so far unanswered question: Is this deal anti-competitive or not?" You can't help wondering if Durie has touched on the central question, still unanswered, in this long, boring saga.

The Age's Adele Ferguson sees positives for the NAB from the ACCC's extension: "The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released NAB's enforceable undertakings to the market for consultation, which includes selling the North platform to IOOF. It set a deadline of September 9 for a decision, which is far enough away from the federal election to minimise any controversy. Besides pushing the verdict out past the election date – something which gives cause to think it might be a positive result – the other aspect of the ACCC's announcement was the release of 13 issues that it has concerning the divestiture proposal. By releasing so many issues, today's statement gives NAB and AXA something to work on, and at face value they are issues that don't seem insurmountable if NAB isn't bloody minded." The NAB's third quarter trading update is out today.

Still with me? The Australian's Bryan Frith: "The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) now finds itself in an uncomfortable position. It has to ask the market if the commission got it right on its stance over NAB's proposed acquisition of Axa Asia Pacific Holdings (Axa APH). After all, it was the ACCC in April that declared that it would oppose a NAB acquisition of Axa APH on the grounds it would result in a substantial lessening of competition in 'the market for the supply of retail investment platforms for investors with complex needs'. At the same time, the ACCC said it wouldn't oppose AMP's proposal to acquire Axa APH, which is now lapsed but is capable of being revived."

And Chanticleer in the AFR took the AXA announcement seriously as well: "Graeme Samuel at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission put his finger on a very ticklish issue when he singled out ownership of an investment platform as the asset that could kill National Australia Bank's $13.2 billion takeover of AXA Asia Pacific Holdings." Another month of this? Arggghhh!

Elsewhere, Business Spectator's Stephen Bartholomeusz examined the improved profit from the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank: "Maybe there is a future for the remaining second-tier banks after all. The Bendigo and Adelaide Bank result may not be spectacular, but the group has weathered the financial crisis and most of its key indicators are now trending in the right direction."

From now on the election will get bottom billing until it's over. We have much more important stuff to focus on: earnings, the Fed, malting barley and beer prices.

Yesterday saw the debate between Wayne Swan and Joe Hockey. Not too many people were impressed. The Australian had two comments, one from Jennifer Hewitt, but the sharper was from economics editor Michael Stutchbury: "Wayne Swan predictably over-egged the case that Labor's budget deficits saved Australia from recession. But Joe Hockey provided no reason to think the Coalition would do much better in getting back to surplus. And both came up short in yesterday's debate in offering any genuine agenda to boost the economy's growth performance." The AFR also took the debate seriously, claiming "the Coalition has signalled new savings measures, a tax policy and major welfare reforms in coming days, after shadow treasurer Joe Hockey conceded the Opposition had only achieved $2.8 billion of net savings after making spending promises worth $25.7 billion." And AFR columnist Tony Harris said the debate was second best, in a column headlined "Honesty takes a back seat."

Elsewhere, News Ltd's Terry McCrann looked at an idea of Tony Abbott's and wasn't impressed: "Tony Abbott's proposal to go back to a Henry Tax Review future is a bad and indeed bizarre idea. It is extraordinarily bad policy and it should be bad politics. Even if at one level, it's also perfectly understandable."

And finally, for all the huffing and puffing in the campaign, the economy remains the big issue for us all, whether at home or offshore. So keep an eye on China's July economic figures tomorrow and, before that, the post-meeting statement from the US Fed. The AFR wrote this morning: "The outcome of the upcoming US Federal Reserve meeting, due Wednesday 4.15am AEST, is shaping up to be one of the most important events in global financial markets in recent times." Yes it is, but don't tell Wayne, Julia, Tone or Joe. A little knowledge is dangerous at this stage in an election.