ANZ, Westpac, BNZ and ASB have been reporting "monster" profits. The combined tally is a mere $6.4 billion.
ANZ, New Zealand’s biggest bank, vaulted in first, at $2.4 billion for the past financial year.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern began the week with a telling-off, warning banks to remember their "social licence" to operate here.
Why should they be making so much money when so many New Zealanders were struggling? "Self-reflection" was required.
Not surprisingly, Ms Ardern’s comments were criticised as all talk and no action. At best, the banks might modify their policies on the margins.
The Greens want "windfall" profit taxes, like on energy companies in Britain. National called for an independent inquiry into monetary policy and how it contributed to the profits.
Indeed, on the back of the $55 billion "printing" of money and support for bank lending, the banks were sizeable Covid beneficiaries.
The housing boom saw bank lending soar. Then, as reality strikes and interest rates rise, the banks have increased the margins between their cost for money and the interest rates they charge.
Of course, banks are easy targets, just as the money changers have been down the centuries.
Apologists made the point the banks should make giant returns as giants of New Zealand business.
Their return on capital was in line with other listed companies, and their strength underpinned the financial system.
However, whatever their protestations, profits are larger than they should be.
First, the big banks have an implied backstop in the government. They are too big to fail, and this proved the case when the BNZ was bailed out in 1990. Such sure bets should not expect high returns.
Second, the profit levels for the four Australian banks are considerably lower across the Tasman. New Zealand profits are also excessive by international standards for such institutions.
While sanctimonious pronouncements will not change anything much, hopefully other options might shake up the cosy club.
It is best to put aside another Commerce Commission study, like that into supermarkets, for now. What, too, would National’s inquiry show that we cannot already ascertain?
More important could be "open banking" and account number portability.
Consumers are notoriously sticky when it comes to changing anything — a characteristic that helps many a business boost income, let alone banking.
The thought of sorting out, even with help, all those accounts, direct debits, automatic payments et all is daunting. Banks know their customers are well-caged.
Only about 5% change in any year, despite distinct dissatisfaction levels. Others would, in theory, prefer their contribution to bank profits to stay in this country but cannot face the hassles of changing banks.
The aim is for this to be as relatively straightforward as changing phone or electricity providers.
Detailed comparisons could be made among what banks were offering. They would have more incentives to care for clients.
However, it is somewhat more complicated with banking, including questions about ownership of data and, importantly, security.
Open banking is far more than just a means for switching banks. It could open all sorts of new ways of managing finances.
Good progress has been made in other parts of the world. It is well under way in Britain and beginning in Australia, accompanied by strong regulations.
A start was made with the announcement yesterday that the Government was working on legislation for open banking in New Zealand.
That is encouraging but could still take a couple of years to introduce.
New Zealand should be a "fast follower", subject to suitable safeguards and rules.
Although banks and their profits make easy public whipping boys, they are creaming it. Actions rather than just words are needed.
