While the big four banks deliver record payouts, the days of surging profits are over, writes David Potts.
Whatever you say about banks, you have to hand it to them for turning a profit in this climate.
Never mind whether they're greedy in not passing on enough rate cuts, or too many in the case of savers, when often as not their customers meekly wear it. Sorry, don't mean you.
But there are some surprisingly generous offers around if you look. The NAB-owned online-only UBank has a one-year fixed rate of 4.79 per cent, almost what it pays savers on a six-month term deposit.
Even its 5.47 per cent variable rate has been trumped by non-bank loans.com.au, with 5.42 per cent - neither with an application fee.
Let's see, the last time rates were that low was in 1968 when Johnny (as he was then) Farnham was singing Sadie the Cleaning Lady and the Pope renewed a ban on contraceptives. Ah, progress.
Where was I? Oh yes, bank shares. The average super fund is stuffed full of them because they pay so well.
There can't be a better, more reliable income than bank dividends returning about 6 per cent, plus a 30 per cent franking credit. That's a good 8 per cent a year before tax.
The banks are giant ATMs that dispense dividends - despite lending, which is what they're all about, barely growing in real terms.
Trouble is lacklustre lending and an average return on equity of 15 per cent don't mix, though the Reserve Bank is engineering a housing recovery next year that is everything a bank could ask for.
While they whinge about an increase in capital required by regulators, banks also regenerate it by self-funding part of their dividends courtesy of shareholders who opt to reinvest rather than take the cash.
Besides, they're sitting on surplus capital having been panicked into raising more than they needed during the GFC.
Higher funding costs? Under control, not that the banks admit it it's just that savers do better, or rather less worse, than borrowers. About the only thing that could go wrong for them is the strong dollar squeezing the economy even harder.
A rise in unemployment would increase bad debts, but the Reserve is on the case.
Even dividends are protected by a nice capital buffer.
Really, it all seems too good to be true for the banks, and it half is.
It's their share price that's the problem. The market value of the best-run bank, the Commonwealth, exceeds its peak in 2007 (from which other stocks still have to claw back an average 50 per cent). The same goes for Westpac. Yet it was a much easier time for banks back then because lending was booming.
So I suspect the trade-off for decent dividends will be a sluggish share price. Still, you could do a lot worse. And probably have.
Follow David Potts on Twitter @moneypotts.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
What dividend yield are Australia’s big banks paying right now?
The article says the big four banks are returning about a 6% dividend yield, and with a 30% franking credit that works out to roughly an 8% pre‑tax return — a level many everyday investors find attractive for income.
How do franking credits boost bank dividend returns for investors?
According to the article, a typical bank dividend of about 6% comes with a 30% franking credit, which increases the effective pre‑tax income to around 8% — franking credits reflect tax the company already paid and can improve after‑tax returns for shareholders.
Are bank dividends safe, or could they be cut?
The piece argues dividends look well supported: banks rebuilt capital after the GFC, have surplus buffers, and can partly self‑fund capital through shareholders who reinvest dividends. However, risks that could pressure payouts include rising unemployment (more bad debts) and broader economic shocks such as a strong dollar squeezing the economy.
If banks pay good dividends, why aren’t their share prices booming?
The article explains the trade‑off: generous, reliable dividends can come with sluggish share price performance because lending growth is lacklustre and future profit growth is limited. Even top banks’ market values — like Commonwealth and Westpac — have different dynamics today compared with the 2007 peak period when lending was booming.
What savings rates are mentioned for UBank and loans.com.au in the article?
The article notes NAB‑owned UBank offering a one‑year fixed rate of 4.79% and a variable rate of 5.47%, and it references non‑bank loans.com.au offering about 5.42% — the piece also mentions neither has an application fee.
Could higher funding costs hurt bank profits and dividends?
The article suggests higher funding costs are largely 'under control' for banks and have mainly meant savers have done better (or borrowers worse), but elevated funding costs remain a factor to watch alongside other risks like lending conditions and the economic cycle.
How might Reserve Bank actions and a housing recovery affect bank performance?
The article says the Reserve Bank appears to be engineering a housing recovery next year, which would be ‘everything a bank could ask for’—because stronger housing and lending growth would help bank earnings and ease the pressure on returns from a slow lending environment.
What should everyday investors consider when choosing bank stocks for income?
The article’s takeaway is that bank stocks can offer reliable income (solid dividends plus franking credits), but investors should weigh that against likely sluggish share price growth if lending remains weak. Consider your income needs, tax situation (franking credits), and tolerance for limited capital upside when evaluating banks.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
