Finance - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemHayne and The Future of the Australian Finance Sector(The Financial Services Institute of Australasia (FINSIA), 2020-04-15)The objective of this paper is to examine the likely consequences of the RC on future Australian financial sector development.
-
ItemTax-driven Off-Market Buybacks (TOMBs): Time to Lay Them to Rest(The Tax Institute, 2020-07-01)Tax-driven Off-Market Buybacks (TOMBs) have been used by large Australian companies to distribute cash and stream franking (tax) credits to low-tax-rate shareholders. While small in number, the amounts are significant, involving an estimated cost to government tax revenue in 2018 of around $2 billion. This paper reviews the current and historical evolution of the regulation and taxation of TOMBs and argues that there are fundamental problems with corporate use of TOMBs. These include inequitable treatment of shareholders, government tax revenue costs, inconsistency with good principles of taxation, arbitrary tax determinations and practices which are difficult to justify. Since corporates can distribute cash to shareholders using other, quite standard, capital management techniques, we argue that a social cost-benefit analysis leads to the conclusion that TOMBs should be prohibited.
-
ItemRegulatory changes to bank liability structures: implications for deposit insurance design(Palgrave Macmillan (part of Springer Nature), 2020-03-01)“Tiered” depositor (or deposit insurer) preference as exists in Australia and has been recently introduced in the EU and UK calls into question the merits of ex ante fees for explicit, limited deposit insurance under such arrangements. This paper illustrates how, under such arrangements, the “fair price” of deposit insurance and risks to the deposit insurer are reduced to near zero unless virtually all bank non-equity funding is insured deposits. It is also argued that other regulatory changes affecting bank liability structures and resolution arrangements reinforce that effect, while introduction of “resolution funds” calls into question the rationale for a separate deposit insurance fund. While increased use of collateralised financing complicates resolution arrangements and raises other risks for financial stability, its impact on a “fair price” for deposit insurance under tiered preference is minimal.
-
ItemFinancial Product Design, Retail Investor Sophistication and Issuer Incentives: A Case Study(Wiley, 2020-09-01)Many financial products and securities marketed to retail investors involve design features that can make it difficult to understand the risk and return characteristics involved. This paper examines one such security, Convertible Preference Step Up Units (CPUs), issued in Australia by the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF) at the end of 2017. It argues that an apparently relatively simple design masks significant complexity which would make risk assessment and fair pricing well beyond the capabilities of retail investors. Despite that, analysis of the security design and disclosure documents suggests that it would not fall foul of the financial product banning powers recommended for the Australian Securities and Investment Commission by the 2014 Australian Financial System Inquiry and in draft legislation as at mid 2018. This highlights the difficulties for effective financial consumer protection resulting from the mismatch between financial literacy levels and financial product design.