Business commentators on metropolitan newspapers take a pretty consistent view of the adjustments devised by National Australia Bank and Axa to shepherd the former's bid for the latter past the ACCC.
In short, it's a crock and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission might as well step forward and block the takeover on the grounds that there's more than enough concentration of financial services revenue among the big banks as it is.
John Durie, in
The Australian, wrote that "there is a legitimate case for blocking this deal on the grounds that NAB and the big four banks are already too big and a line must be drawn in the sand.
"The Samuel administration at the ACCC has waved through one of the great financial services land grabs in the history of Australia, and conditional approval of the NAB deal would simply add one more to the list."
Terry McCrann, in the
Herald Sun, wrote that "the ACCC thinks keeping North alive is critical to competition. But doesn't really know. After all, it has hardly existed to date. And in pursuing this competitive firefly, the ACCC has had to embark on the most intrusive micro-management.
"Somehow I don't think North and North all alone is that seminal. Nor that its ACCC-structured future will transform the competition dynamics of our $1 trillion-plus managed savings industry and wealth management more generally.
Fairfax columnists agree.
Adele Ferguson, in
The Age, wrote that "as far as increasing competition across financial services goes, this deal will not do it. The golden rule is that any deal that does not have a material financial element will have a similar impact on the competitive landscape.
"According to Rainmaker, IOOF would jump two places to sixth with 4.5 per cent of the financial services market while the NAB/MLC/Aviva/AXA AP group, without North, would still be ranked No.2 with a 20 per cent market share. Westpac/BT would be No.1 with 29 per cent.
"Across the overall platform market, Rainmaker estimates that the combined NAB group would control almost 25 per cent of the market, which is a third more than the No.2 player.
"The problem is, the ACCC's focus should never have been on reduced competition among retail platforms for investors with complex needs. The real focus should have been on distribution, in particular aligned distribution; less than 10 per cent of financial advisers use the North platform."
Ian Verrender, from the
Sydney Morning Herald, pointed out that the ACCC fresh round of consultations will push back a decision on the deal until September 9, and several weeks after the Australian election.
"You don't have to be Einstein to figure out his strategy. While the ACCC would never admit to being a politically motivated or influenced organisation, it is clear the ALP views the market power of the big four banks with alarm while the Coalition may be more favourably disposed to it.
"Ultimately, NAB's hopes of seizing a dominant position in superannuation rest on the outcome of the federal election, bearing in mind that any decision by the ACCC can be overridden by the Treasurer."
In the Financial Review, Tony Boyd sheds light on some of the price dynamics that are key to the competitive tension, or lack of it, irrespective of who owns the North platform Axa will sell for a song to IOOF.
Boyd highlights the lobbying by banks, including NAB, to continue to pay commissions via investment platforms to financial planners, even once commissions paid directly to planners are banned from July 2012.
Annual commissions paid via platforms to planners under this structure can be more than three per cent.
"NAB is willing to give up the North wealth management platform to IOOF in the knowledge that Axa's planners and MLC's planners are locked into the NAB's existing platforms such as Navigator."