They are New Zealand politicians playing populist cards and talking tough about monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies.
Politicians from Labour and National, for example, have railed against the twin supermarket giants. First, the Commerce Commission is called on to investigate. Armed with a collection of recommendations, the politicians then claim they are taking action.
Meanwhile, little seems to change for the suffering public. A grocery commissioner here and a ban on land covenants there as the changes tinker around the edges. The supermarkets sway with the breeze and continue their merry money-making way.
The latest example is the big bad banks, the four Australian-owned giants which took $7.21billion in profits out of New Zealand in the past year. While they are large companies that should make large profits, this is excessive.
The Commerce Commission in its personal banking report, out this week, confirmed what we already knew.
ANZ, Westpac, BNZ and ASB hold 85% to 90% of bank assets and they live and let live with at best "cosy pillow fight" competition, as finance minister Nicola Willis put it. Why should they rock the boat or spend money on innovation and better technology? They already make profits above and beyond most of their international counterparts and their Australian parents.
They make it harder than necessary to switch banks and to compare real — as distinct from headline — deposit and mortgage options. Mortgage brokers are, to some extent, beholden to them.
Discretionary discounts contribute to a lack of transparency. They are another device to lessen aggressive competition.
The banks employ lawyers and lobbyists to argue their case about providing financial stability. They appear to have played a part in convincing the commission to seriously soften its draft recommendations on reducing capital requirements for smaller banks.
Such requirements make it difficult for newcomers and innovators to become banks and for second-tier banks to compete.
The commission reported on "helpful engagement with stakeholders" between its draft and the final report. It argued its 14 recommendations would provide "more enduring disruption" than any radical breakup of the big four.
Much is made of two proposals — boosting Kiwibank as a disruptor and expediting "open banking".
The idea is that as Kiwibank grew it would take market share and the big four would need to respond. It would be easy, though, for Kiwibank to copy the four oligopolists in their practices as it seeks consistent profits.
Ms Willis said the report made it clear Kiwibank would need more capital to grow and competitively attract new customers. It was somewhat ironic when she then said: "The time to act is now, and we are seeking advice."
Open banking gives banking data ownership to customers. It should make switching banks easier and for the involvement of financial technology companies and their innovation and services.
Despite open banking already being established in Australia and Britain — to mixed success so far — the New Zealand banks have perfected the art of talking positively while making snail’s-pace progress. This seemingly deliberate procrastination must stop.
We have had enough of sweet words yet continued delays on "open banking". We must allow others the chance to offer customers advice and better deals.
It was noted that in Australia the parent banks could switch accounts in 10 to 15 minutes.
The commission and Ms Willis both talked tough. She said the commission conducted its work "fearlessly" and its conclusions were robust. It had provided actionable insights, and the government was responding with urgency.
While she has promised to follow up on all 14 recommendations, public scepticism is understandable and in order.
This will be a testing ground for a government determined to paint itself as one of action and results. It will have to follow through promptly and decisively. It will be banking on the accumulation of the various measures to make a difference.
Ms Willis and the government will be justifiably criticised if little has changed in banking competition by the 2026 election.
