Good morning, Matthew Wilson, Jarden. Two questions, if I may. Firstly, one to Maile. During your presentation, you sort of articulated. Competitive advantage three times. Might have been four. Can you add some color to what that actually means? Because we commonly look at a home. Loan today as being pretty commoditised and also with other products. Secondly, for Christine, the move to Suncorp will be the same customer. Experience, because keeping an account number, keeping. A credit card number, keeping a BSB number is critical. Will the Suncorp customers have that experience?
Great. I'll start in terms of competitive advantage. Really the way that we are looking at it is that the underlying platform that we've built that I probably bored you senseless with is really providing a huge amount of capacity and capability to not just do things more efficiently. Right. It also means that we can create just a lot more customer features. Right? Yes, for things which are commoditized, it means we can do it, we can do it very effectively or efficiently. Mo's got a backlog of things that should make our customers' lives just much easier for them to manage their money. Right.
There are things like everywhere, from scam and safety features all the way through to they've built something called Salary Splitter, which is rather than having to go and partition your money into different accounts, it just automatically does that. I mean, when I talk about competitive advantage, it ranges from just better features all the way through to being able to execute those materially faster than probably anything else. There are boring things like the DORA metrics. We are going to be as fast as the big tech companies in terms of their ability to do releases all the way through to just being able to do things more efficiently. It is a pretty broad definition of competitive advantage.
Thanks, Maile. To pick up the second part of the question, we have the same approach in our planning. Our goal for all of our customers is that it will be as frictionless as possible, that we create journeys and we think about how we make that transition as easy as possible. It's too early to talk about how we will plan for that. Exactly. That is the work that is underway, making sure we are really clear about what does the Suncorp customer base value and how do we make that safe and secure journey into ANZ.
When we started the work to build the migration journey, we knew that it was going to have to also be able to account for Suncorp. It is not so, you know, to Christine's point, it is not like we are having to cobble together something completely different. The way that Paul and team are architecting it, building it, is taking into account Suncorp as well. Morning?
Jon Mott from Barrenjoey . Whenever you hear the treasurer talk, it's all about the people in society who have been left behind, keeping branches open, making sure cash is available, things that the vast majority of people have moved on from 10, 15 years in the past. When you think about ANZ, those people are also going to have to be migrated. It might sound like it's really easy. You just upload an app and then take a selfie of yourself and you won't even notice, but there's going to be this tail. When you think about it from that perspective, you're also talking about the great benefits you get when you can move people off. You can start decommissioning systems and you can start getting big savings.
When you think about that, how long is it going to actually take until you get the last of the people across? You can't decommission until everyone's over. Second part of the question, how many people are working on that and that old systems that you can decommission and eventually move away from? Two parts to that question.
Obviously we know that we have a number of customers who fall into the vulnerability category and we are absolutely making sure that we've got solutions and propositions that will kind of meet their needs. Right. It is not that they are forgotten. Actually, another part of the reason why we are keeping our core banking system is because actually a lot of what they need is managed in that core. That core, once you hollow it out and you strip it back to its basic thing, we can keep customers on there for a long period of time. As I said before, that is the minority. Everything else, we can pretty much decommission. Right, right. We thought about it, we've got a plan and, you know, we know we're going to. We need to service them. On the number of people, do you.
Just to provide some context.
Do you want to come and talk into the mic?
I look after technology for retail and commercial and to put it into some sense, I got about 4,000 permanent staff and contractors currently, and 1,100 of them are working on ANZ. To give you a sense of.
How many of them are working on old systems which will eventually be decommissioned?
The other 2,900 are working on old systems. Not all of that will go away, but the vast majority will to Maile's point earlier. Exactly. We get a variable. Some of the cost base is fixed, some is variable. As customers are progressively migrated, the variable costs will come down. To your point, you do not realize all of the fixed cost benefit until we have dealt with all the problems.
Just getting that right, there is a tail, but it's only the core product that these sort of more vulnerable customers will be left on. You can actually go ahead and start decommissioning while you're moving the last.
Of the people over.
You're doing two things really Maile. It's you're descaling and decommissioning. You can, as you descale, you get benefits from that. Then there's the end state decommission system.
Yeah.
Go to. This is easy to do it around the room. Thanks.
Thanks . It's Andrew Triggs from J.P. Morgan. Just want to be clear, I mean, are you confident that you can run. We've heard mostly about the retail bank today, but the commercial bank too on this system. I think most slides at the previous session suggested it doesn't do cash handling at the moment. It doesn't do cheques either. I know cheques may be phased out later, but are those products going to be added? Or it's just a simple product which doesn't necessarily address the entire market.
Thank you for the question because I should have addressed that. We absolutely have built that underlying platform to actually scale into commercial and that is actively being planned as we speak. That was always the case. If you go back at the beginning, we always were looking at the partners we selected, how we built this whole thing for coherence included assuming and knowing we were going to scale it into commercial, at least at minimum the small into commercial. I think on the cash handling, we do cash. It is absolutely being built to manage cash handling. On cheques, as you would know, the kind of jury's out at the moment in terms of what the plan is for cheques. Ideally we don't, to be frank, ideally we don't want to build it so that it has to handle cheques.
If we need to, we can. This goes back to just the agility of the system. It's not a matter of whether we can do it, it's just we don't wish, ideally we don't want to have to prioritize it. Is that fair, Maile?
Yep.
I mean, commercial customers tend to be more complex. How long do you think it will take ANZ to be able to deal to commercial customers, including Suncorp has a mixture of retail and commercial customers?
Yeah, I mean, the timing, as I said, we're still working through and planning, but they are already in doing that planning, seeing a tremendous amount of reusability. As they think about building out their own Transact and Save products, almost all that we've built will be reusable by them. They'll be able to accelerate and move faster. You know, I don't want to speak to exact timings, but what I will say is it's probably going to be faster than what you would expect in terms of their ability to get product because they're coming in on that upside of the inflection curve and there's actually a lot of overlap. Some of the things that they are needing to build help solve for some of the things that we intended to build for customers too. Complex relationships, power of attorney and other things.
Again, we won't build it once and they'll build it once. We're going to build it together and again get that efficiency and velocity out of that.
If it's helpful, what we mean is at the moment, if you think about how most industries, how they will build, they will build it in silos. They would do, if you just take something like joining the bank or joining, right, joining Bunnings, joining the bank, you would have a different join flow with a whole isolated series of technology systems, process, blah, blah, blah for a retail person joining the bank for a credit card or retail. You would have a whole different set of stuff that you would do for a small business joining them. When we talk about reusability, what we mean is we have built the join the bank and everything else we've built, but I've built the join the bank in a way that it's like an accordion.
We knew we were going to have to solve for all these things. We just basically expand the function so it's the same join flow and functionality versus it being siloed and different for every single thing. Yes, we know, we knew we were going to do it. We know we can expand to.
Second question just around credit cards. Like when will that be added? I think you said 2026. In the meantime, if customers have a pretty simple relationship, which is transaction account, might have their salary, credit paid into their account and then maybe a savings product, but have a credit card, will you migrate them first and then they'll just operate with two apps in the meantime?
The answer is yes, it's 26 the credit cards. Do you want to talk about the migration?
Yeah. One of our really key principles is to migrate customers whole to make sure we avoid as much friction as possible. On that basis we will move our Transact and Save customers first, then we will move our Transact and Save with credit card customers. That proposition is in place.
Yeah, Ed, if you want to pass it up. I wasn't sure whether you had a question, Ryan, but we'll hand it to Ed. Thank you.
Thanks .
Excuse me, Ed Henning from CLSA. Can you just touch on the potential as you migrate people? When you get towards the rump, will you need to incentivize people to come across or pay people, or can you force migrate people because they're going to have the exact same features or more features than what they've got currently?
Yeah, thank you. It's a good question. For us, what we're trying to plan for is a move that enables customers to move smoothly over to the new ANZ proposition with good alignment between today's proposition and tomorrow. We've worked really hard at making sure that we've simplified our products and our processes today so that when we look to those customers moving tomorrow, actually it's a very similar alignment for customers so that we can be really thoughtful about how does that work into the future.
Basically we're simplifying the existing set of products and features so that, as you said, when it comes to the movement, its equivalency.
It's more about.
Removing a disincentive, Ed, than creating an incentive, if that makes sense.
Can you. Do you need to push people across eventually? Like will you have to then incentivize people, whether it's giving them money to join a savings account or anything, or you can go, look, you've just got to open this new app. So therefore that's your problem.
The latter.
That's clear, thank you. Can you just, further on to trans, can you just talk about you've now got two applications, one potentially won't have all the features. Can you talk about the potential thoughts of customer loss in this kind of two year roughly journey, what you're planning, how we should think about credit growth and customers through this period.
If you just look at forgetting ANZ Plus for a minute, if you just look at our existing business, we are basically growing share where we want to be growing it. Right. So we're not seeing, you know, we're actually performing, you know, relatively well. You know, where we're not growing, it's because we're making commercial decisions that.
Right.
Yes, we're going to have to keep a very close eye on this transition period. We've got a whole team of people who are looking at how do you, how do you manage potential frictions of, you know, across it. It's not that we're not alive to it as a risk. At this point we're not seeing it translate to any. As Christine says, we are also building the migration journey to have as much flexibility as possible so as things arise, we can kind of adapt to face into them. The answer is we are absolutely alive to the fact that we need to keep an eye out to make sure that all this frictionless stuff we're doing is playing out. We're not seeing issues with our customers.
We're not seeing it today in any material way, but we have got the agility to kind of adapt if we are starting to see it.
Are kind of two parts to it, Ed. One is that migration piece that Maile and Christine talked to. The other really important part is what Mo talked to. The destination's gotta be really good. In the better, faster, cheaper, safer, what you can't lose sight of is the destination. That's why there's so much focus on the product rollout, the feature rollout, et cetera.
Thanks, Andrew.
Thanks, Andrew. Lyons from Jefferies, Maile, you mentioned that it'll be 18 months before the front book's entirely on Plus. You said that value will come from three sources, being superior products and acquisition costs, servicing and decommissioning. Maybe just to expand on Jon's question, can you talk to the timing of value creation on each of those three areas? Can I even hazard to ask how we should be thinking about the dollar value of each as well?
Who saw that coming?
Shocked by that question. I have been given very, very stern finger waggling to not get into those type of specifics. You put me in a very awkward position. We are not in a position to kind of walk through that. I mean, you know, as I said, we have given some indications historically about the kind of the cost to acquire benefits. We are seeing they were for our savings and transaction accounts. You are smart. You can start thinking through what that might look like as we start rolling out home loans. I am not going to give you the answer on what that acquisition benefit could look like over the next, call it 18 months. You can work that out as best you can yourself. In terms of the migration and decommission commissioning, that is still something we are working through.
Obviously we've got a base plan, we've got Nuno coming in and we want to work really actively with him. He is very well aligned to what that migration plan looks like. As Christine says, we've got actually quite a lot of flexibility in terms of how and when we do that.
You could maybe for Andrew, you could simplify it. I'm not saying you're simple, Andrew, but you could simplify it into the three buckets of the acquisition cost, the servicing cost and the decommission.
You just did.
When Plus was first announced, there was a suggestion that there would be new BSB and account numbers. That seems to have changed. Is that just how technology's changed since it was first announced? Can you just explain why that has changed from the original announcement?
When, I mean, again, we have learned a lot as we're doing the program and one of the things that we've spent a lot of time on and Christine kind of referred to it is really going around and saying, how do we make sure that we keeping our customers with us with the migration? Again, if you go back and you look at it reducing a lot of those friction points and some of the big friction points you can imagine if you change or remove BSB and account numbers, you have to rebuild a whole bunch of stuff. We just kind of looked at and said, okay, the cost of keeping that stuff actually is pretty de minimis. The value of keeping it for our customers is pretty high.
We just, you know, Christine's done a great job getting global learnings on how to best manage not just the destination, but the journey to get there. We just made a pragmatic call.
Good morning, it's Sally Hong from Morgan Stanley. Just a question on AI, actually, are you leveraging AI and Gen AI in ANZ? If so, can you talk to some of the largest use cases?
Sure.
Mo, do you want to take that?
Yep. I mean, we're leveraging it at the moment with our Coach staff. Everything from helping them find content and material faster to doing automated QA and other services that we think can help us become even more efficient in our ability to service and support customers. We're running some experiments at the moment in terms of eventual customer facing features that would allow us to provide better financial well being, insights, nudges and other prompts to help them make better choices. We're both doing it on the service and support side as well as on the customer side.
I think there's a real ambition for us to ensure that ultimately, if you think about what we want to do from a financial well being perspective, is give people a behaviorally designed, very intelligent sort of personal assistant that is able to help them manage their money better. I think we're sort of well on the way towards beginning to test some of those elements.
If you look at migration, we are using, we kind of designed AI in from the start of the migration journey. We are automatically generating the test cases from the migration requirements. We are automatically generating synthetic test data that looks exactly like, has the characteristics of the customer data in production. We can use that earlier in the development stream and be more accurate whilst respecting data privacy controls. As you might have heard Gerard Florian and others talk about, we have broadly rolled out GitHub Copilot across our engineering population. Eighty percent of our engineers are actively using AI prompts when creating code. As of the end of February, 11% of all the code generated within ANZ, including Plus and including migration, was generated by AI, for example.
Thanks, Victor. Yeah, you're on.
Thank you. Sorry, I do have two questions for Maile. What you do, Jill, can I ask you the first question?
Oh, no, this is not how it's meant to work at all.
It's actually relating back to the earlier question. I mean, we've been obviously on the journey for quite some time. I think ANZ Plus been kind of around for a while. And Maile will correct me exactly when it started. Why aren't we at the position where you can provide some more numbers to us around potential benefits? Is it because the CEO, the new CEO is about to start or is it because you're still uncertain about the path?
No, it's neither of those. It's really been about as you go along the journey, what you want to be able to do is maintain the maximum amount of flexibility in terms of how you do that, when you do that, etc. Now as we're getting rapidly towards the pointy end, obviously internally we have a view, but that's why we want to, we will wait and give you more of that over the next, you know, 12 months or so. Yes, of course with, you know, you know, it's exciting to have someone that's coming in as CEO who's got so much experience at migration, et cetera, and have him be part of the decisioning.
Isn't it great that he's got the flexibility to make those decisions that, you know, a year ago, two years ago, when you were in development, you weren't in the position to do it.
You feel the project has been de-risked to a point where that's sort of imminent.
Yeah, I mean, I think the other thing, particularly because of the path we chose where we knew that for about half the time it was going to look like, okay, there's nothing visibly to kind of show for it, you know, we didn't want to be yet another one of what is an endless dream of people making big bang announcements, making promises that just somehow managed. We wanted to be a program where we had the flexibility.
We weren't over prepared, promising and you know, but we have absolutely kind of, we keep on using the word inflection point when, but now that we're getting to the point where, as I said, we've kind of de risk and built that the really the very, very hard, chunky, risky part of the program and we're about to, you know, prove that we've got an industrialized migration program, we're absolutely at the point where, you know, we've got a lot of confidence about where we're headed.
Okay, thank you. That was my crafty way of asking three questions. The question for you, Maile. If I look at products that are available on ANZ Plus versus legacy ANZ, generally speaking, pricing is better on ANZ Plus. As you're looking to migrate, how should we think about the potential revenue attrition? Are you planning to stable level the pricing or maybe if you can give us a little bit of context around that.
If you just take a step back, I mean, we're doing this to be a better outcome, not just for our customers, but also for our shareholders. We're very aware that we need to make kind of sensible commercial decisions. One of the things that we haven't spent a ton of time or kind of press or anything on is we are quietly building out a suite of savings and transaction products in ANZ Plus that have got different pricing. Again, we've got a lot of flexibility in terms of both what we're building in the background and the pricing of those. You know, and Farhan the CFO is holding our feet to the fire to make sure that as we build those, the migration plans, we're very, very mindful of what the shareholder outcomes are.
We absolutely, and you and I talked about this before, we absolutely leverage price initially to load test what we have built because we wanted to as quickly as possible understand whether or not what we built was industrialized and strong and secure enough to be able to handle 6 million Plus customers. The fastest way to do that, other than having a good solid product, is to quite honestly to price it. We very shamelessly have leveraged price historically to rapidly load test, but that is not the plan going forward.
You think the revenue attrition is largely irrelevant.
Yeah.
Okay. On the investment side, you're investing around AUD 2 billion roughly. Clearly the biggest bang for your buck is to invest as much as you can in that Plus. At the same time, you've got 7 million customers on the legacy system. Can you maybe give us a little bit of sense how you think about investment splitting one versus the other and what potential kind of benefit going forward for switching one versus the other?
Obviously we have, you know, our existing customer base is largely on our existing business. We need to invest sufficiently in that to maintain being competitive in today's environment. We also need to maintain enough to be compliant in today's environment. We are absolutely, you know, if I was going to be crude about it, it's like we are investing the minimum required to maintain competitiveness and making sure that we're delivering on our requirements so that we can accelerate into and invest as much as we can into ANZ. I mean, yes, we have to juggle both, but obviously over time, particularly as we get closer to getting the majority of our customers onto Plus, we can start looking at what that balance is and ideally start investing more into Plus giving some back to the shareholder.
We'll have flexibility in terms of what we do with that money that we're currently investing in the business.
Thanks, Victor. We might go to Jon, please, and then to Brian. Sorry, it was very complex. So Jon story just there. And then to Brian.
Hey, Marty, I appreciate you're not going to give too many numbers away.
Today,
you have a smile on your face. You know, you are going to be sneaky.
That will not stop me asking.
Victor referenced the $2 billion investment spend. Maybe just get some context around how far are you through the investment spend process. You know, what's the dollar spend that's been attributed to ANZ Plus?
Can I just clarify something? When you talk about $2 billion, is this what Shayne talked about at the FY?
I'd be interested to understand how much to date have you actually spent on ANZ Plus.
Right.
As we said, yeah, today.
Right.
Because when the cumulative spend.
Yeah, Shayne mentioned two and a half, but that's in store as well.
I mean we've talked about the fact that I think the last. I want to make sure I'm referencing the most recent. The last time we talked about this, I think we talked about the fact we'd spent about AUD 1 billion and we're spending about AUD 400 million a year on the build.
Build and run.
Build and run. That's, you know, so basically we've spent about one and roughly one and a half. Now, you know, how we continue the follow up, what we spend in the future is going to be very much dictated by how quickly we want to do the build. Nuno coming in will have some flexibility in terms of how he wants to do that. Yeah, we spent about one and a half today.
Just attached to that question, I mean when you go and sit and present in front of the board, what kind of internal rates of return or return on invested capital are they judging as against?
You know, I'm not going to share that.
That's a lovely try.
Just last question from my side is just the rate of technological innovation obviously has changed dramatically since this project was started. Right. If you had to go back and you had a blank piece of paper, are there any systems or is there a different approach that you would take and with the cost of this project, if you had to start today, look very different to what it has been over the last few years?
Yep. Paul's looking at me like he's desperate to answer that.
I'll answer the technology component of it. As you know, we've got a highly componentized architecture and one that, as you've seen from the numbers already, is proven in terms of scalability and availability. Importantly, what we do not really talk about enough is that it's also resilient. If you look at ANZ, when something goes wrong, it tends to be a very narrow part of the solution, almost not noticeable to the vast majority of customers, unlike other propositions that are in market. One of the things that we've also proven is the flexibility. Technology does move fast, as you said, and already we've made a number of changes to swap out certain components of the architecture without actually interrupting the flow of features that Mo spoke to earlier. That's a key tenet. Things do not stay the same.
Plus it's been architected from the start to allow us to do that. We are very satisfied that the underlying platform is exceeding expectations in terms of automation, release frequency, ability to change, safety, security, resilience and so on. Very happy with all of that.
I think one of the things that people, I understand that for the population in general, what exploded onto the scene with Gen AI felt like this miraculous. Where did that come from? Right. What people do not think about is that actually places like Google started buying deep neural network and deep kind of learning technology companies back in 2014. In 2015, every single Google employee had to do mandatory training to make sure they understood what was coming down the pipe in terms of all of what we call now generative AI. Right. If you think about one of the things that was easy to see for those people who kind of were in that space when we started the build was the criticality of building it for what now feels like new whiz bang, you know, data capability.
We, you could see that a mile off right back in, you know, when we started this. That is something that we would build in, you know. Again, to answer your question, I think people who did not have that might have, when they built it, might not have started that play, but we did because, you know, we had that insight. I think one of the things though, there is no doubt that the speed of code development today is faster and cheaper. Right. If you were starting today, could you theoretically either build it faster or build it more cheaply? Potentially, yes.
Right.
What would be the magnitude of that benefit? Honestly, I don't know. You can see things coming kind of bandied around. Is it when you go back and you look at how long does it take to fundamentally transform a business as complex and as regulated as a retail bank, you're not getting away for less than seven years.
Right.
It's just not even with all of the whiz bang, you're not getting away in less than seven years if you do the scale that is required today to, as I said, create fundamental competitive and enduring advantage to win in the future. Could we have done it a little bit faster or cheaper if we started today with the tools that are available versus when we did? Yeah, probably. Would I want to be starting today versus when I did? Heck no, because we are already through the really tough bit. I'm not saying that there's not a lot more work to go, but we've kind of broken the back of this thing and, as I said, we're now building the stuff that is highly visible, highly exciting. I don't know if that helps answer your question.
Can you pass it to Brian? Thanks.
Thank you and thanks for a great presentation. Brian Johnson, MST Financial. I keep on asking the same question. Mortgage broker commissions are pretty chunky. Home loans are bloody big. AUD 666,000 on average. I'm just intrigued when we talk about the cost to acquire and the cost to serve. It kind of feels to me as though it's probably quite irrelevant compared to the net interest margin in the first year on a home loan, which must be about AUD 6,000-AUD 7,000. I know you don't want to give us away any numbers, but unfortunately you guys have put up the slide. Is it relevant compared to the net interest income? As a subset of that question, are you kind of today telling us costs go up before they go down, like cutting right through everything?
Yeah. Okay, so look, it's a great question and I think you're seeing quite a lot of potentially material movements in the marketplace at the moment as it relates to managing, whether it's proprietary or broker. There is a lot going on. Again, what the build is going to do for us is just give us the flexibility to kind of play in different lanes and distribution profit pockets. Your point is a really good one, which is when you look actually at the cost of a loan, a huge portion of it is the commission. Right. Again, the numbers we showed up there were for savings and transaction accounts. Now one of the reasons Mo showed that the end to end.
Yes, the commission is expensive, but do not underestimate in terms of the acquisition all of the cost associated with all the other manual work associated with processing that loan. That stuff we are going to be able to crush down too. Again, we can talk about proportionality. It is.
If you look at PEXA, probably the cost to acquire a home loan is somewhere between AUD 300-500. Cutting that by 30%. 30% sounds like a really big number. It's not. It's like AUD 70 compared to the net interest margin of 6,000 or 7,000. And that's a broker commission. That's adding the AUD 2,000 cash back. It's just, I'd really like to understand, I get the fact that it's all very desirable, but at the end of the day we all need to know, is it relevant?
Yes. Okay.
One of the things I would say is when you look at why do customers go through different distribution channels? They go through it for many, many reasons. One of the big, big reasons is because different channels manage the administration of a loan more or less effectively. Right. The reason I said you've got to slice it up into different segments. There are going to be, we think, a material number of customers for whom, you know, maybe they're an investor, they've done multiple loans, they kind of know what they're doing that are going to want to just go press the button, go straight through. They don't need the support now. I think what you're talking about for customers who need a lot of hand holding, who value things other than the processing of loan, who want someone, will it be material?
I don't know, possibly not. When you look across all the different loan types, will what we're building translate into something material in terms of efficiency? I think it will.
Will.
It's just going to depend on which loan buyer you're talking about. For some it will be very material.
Maile, as a subset of that today we know there's going to be a legacy core, you answered that with Jon, which will be very difficult to close down. Are we talking about costs go up before they go down? Which is quite a reasonable answer. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
At the moment we are managing dual run costs, right? At the moment when you look at the cost of the existing ANZ financials that we publish and Paul just talked about it, we have 1,100 of his fourth engineers on, so we are already absorbing the dual run costs of running this stack and our existing stack. I am not saying whether costs might go up or down, I am just saying we are managing the business at the moment managing both the dual run.
Costs and,.
The cost of build cost.
Migration are in the run rate today as well. There might be some variability.
I'm still going to leave the room with no answer. Costs up,
cost we're not making.
It's more. I think what Maile's trying to say is that it's the mix of cost. Brian, I understand what you're asking, but as the, you're going to get improvement in benefit in the cost of managing the tail. You've still got that mixed cost for a bit yet. That's not to say it goes up before it goes down. Either way that would be something if we were going to talk about that, that would be a question of the results.
Maile, the second question is the PC access for ANZ Plus. I love my mobile phone as much as anyone else. You know what? When I did my banking, I'm an old man. I like to use ANZ, I like to use the PC. I would flag to you, there does seem to have been some slippage in this regard that we asked about last time. Can we get some more specifics on as opposed to the service at the moment? That looks, it doesn't look like PC banking to me. It looks like a vision there rather than actually any transactional capability.
Yeah, we actually have Internet banking in pilot at the moment and we're preparing it not only because it's going to help facilitate. As to your point, customers who sign up for Plus today know that it's app only. Customers are going to be migrated. We'll have that exact expectation of I need access to a PC and we recognize that there's value there. Again, it was about when do we do things and why? It just made sense to when we felt we had enough product build out and were ready for migration to begin building out that web experience again. That web experience, high reusability. We just plugged into the APIs, we put on a front end. We can build it 3.4x faster than what it would normally take to build a web experience.
From that I'm taking that you really need to have that up and functional by the end of 2026.
Yes, great.
Thank you.
Thanks very much. Matt Dunger from Bank of America. If I could just ask about having flexibility with Nuno coming in, you've mentioned a couple of times, where do you see that flexibility? Because it seems like you're in the throes of migration and this industrialization process. Can you talk to.
I think it's going to come in a couple of places. It's going to come. Christine's already talked about it. It's like when and how and who do we do the migration? That's, you know, that's going to be a big one. As Christine has said, we have constructed the move engine to have the flexibility but, you know, again, just putting in front of, you know, giving Nuno options in terms of, you know, that pathway is one of them. Another one which was just referred to earlier, we have got the flexibility to scale up, scale down the build out of Plus. So we've got an assumed program. We've got an assumed level of continuity of how much money we're putting into it. But again, Nuno will have flexibility in terms of how much he wants to either accelerate or the build out of.
Plus, look, I think there's a lot of room he will have to move. Again, I'm not going to do more to speak on his behalf.
For a start, I'm not fluent.
No, not fluent in Portuguese. I know.
Phil, did you. Sorry. If we go to Philip and then. Sorry, Dougal.
Thanks, guys. Philip Wensley from Paradice Investments. Can I just ask about the transition to 10 minute mortgages and obviously everybody's sort of doing this. What does it ultimately do for the way competition works between each of the banks and also between the broker channel? Ultimately, does this just mean that everybody's got a 10 minute mortgage, it's very fast. That as a home buyer I can just access myself directly each and every in everybody's mortgage offering quite quickly, or do I ultimately end up seeing a greater proportion of flow just go through the broker channel? Because that's the way to, you know, that's the way to do it. That really comes down to the ultimate cost question that we're talking about as well. Bottom line question is, does broker flow go up or down with the advent of 10 minute mortgages?
Okay, again, and Mo talked about this and it's just a stick point for me. I apologize. I don't apologize. Just to reiterate, not all 10 minute mortgages are the same at the moment. The 10 minute mortgages in the market today are 10 minutes for application. Right. And some potential indication of likelihood of it being approved. Right. That's our, you know, so the digitization all the way through the journey has not been done anywhere else except for Plus. There's not a like for like anyway. To specifically answer your question, I think it's going to be different depending on the segment. It goes back to kind of what I was saying to BJ. There are going to be customers for whom they are like, you know what? I know what I want. I'm sophisticated enough, I've done my own exploration.
It is so easy that I can just do it myself. I do not need a third party to help me with the processing of the loan. Actually, you could make an argument for some segments of the customer base, it might mean that there is less broker. Right. For some it could be more. I think that is still to play out, but I do not know if Mo or Christine, you have got a.
Yeah.
I mean we did some recent research and I can't get into the exact details of it but what we saw was actually a very rapid increase in the percentage of customers or people that we, you know, people that we spoke to who said that they were more willing to do this on their own once they were exposed to the experience. It grew faster than even we expected. I think to Maile's point, there will be an increasing proportion of customers who are expert, have done mortgages before, understand the process, who will find comfort in the ability to just be able to do something quite speedily. Of course there were customers who absolutely said no, I still need help. They tended to be first time home buyers.
This kind of experience will hopefully allow us to stand out in terms of our ability to not only get to potential approval but actually get to accepted and ready for settlement rather quickly.
I think it's really important that we stress though there is a broker channel being built. They're important to our business and it's about them having a good experience and being faster as well and that becomes more efficient. This is about options.
Okay, thank you,
Dougal.
Maple- Brown Abbott checking my kids last night. They like you at ANZ Plus.
When I asked them why, they said, well, Dad, they gave me AUD 50 to sign up and better still.
They gave me AUD 50 to refer a mate.
One of them referred 10.
That's pretty impressive.
It's a sensible customer acquisition strategy. I'm just wondering of your million retail customers, how many of my kids equivalent who have been paid $100.
To open an account?
That was something we tested in the early days. Just again when we were looking at how quickly can we load test this, what are some different ways? We tested that probably, gosh, it would have been a year and a half ago. Yeah, and we haven't done it, we haven't done it since. It was kind of a one off. We just tested it and I don't know what percentage it would.
It's not a meaningful percentage.
It was more of an experiment to really see whether there would be that value. It drove volume, it was good. What we recognized is we were acquiring at an increasingly faster rate anyway that we do not see the need to do.
Really because when we look at there's some other fintechs who've done equivalence and so we just wanted to get a sense of okay in other markets so it was just, again, just an easy thing to. Relatively easy thing to spin up just to see what happened.
Yeah.
Second question, slightly more serious.
Triggs asked about the application other parts of the bank. Can you remind what's happening in New Zealand? You've got a reasonable business over there. RBNZ has been a little bit difficult.
Over the last couple of years in.
Terms of technology, data privacy systems.
Can you migrate similar ways in New Zealand, like you're going to do here?
Yeah. One of the things we've talked about, which I think this, is if you just take a step back out of retail banking and you talk about kind of the strategy more broadly that the bank's following, obviously we talk about our two platform strategies. You know, the ANZ Plus platform for retail and into kind of the.
Small.
Smaller customer end of commercial and then our Transactive program for institutional and kind of the more sophisticated end of the commercial business. The other thing that's happening, and again, it goes to the point that your core banking system is, while it is the minority, it's still a critical piece of the puzzle. Again, we chose for a bunch of reasons, predominantly around the migration, but also because it was still going to be fit for purpose to not upgrade our core in Australia, they are experimenting with that in New Zealand. In New Zealand at the moment, while we're doing everything outside of the core, other than hollowing it out, they're experimenting with what do you do.
If.
You actually change the core and move the core to a contemporary cloud base? You could see a point where you basically do a bit of a swap. We reapply what they're doing when the time is right for core upgrade. They're already stealing with pride or reapplying with pride, a lot of the stuff we're doing in Plus. Increasingly the New Zealand side of the business is starting to reapply Plus. I don't know if that answers your question, but Josh.
Thanks, Dougal.
Snuck in there. Thanks, Josh Freiman from Investors Mutual. Just a couple of quick questions, just on that slide of product releases and when you expect products to be on ANZ Plus, was that calendar year or financial year?
Calendar, Calendar.
Calendar. Gotcha. Then secondarily, it seems like parts of your customer base would obviously be transaction only or transaction and mortgage only. While it is 18 months for you to have the full front book on ANZ, you will obviously, before the 18 months, have parts of that, you know, that customer base be able to be migrated. Would you start migrating before you finish the front book, I guess unload or product development A, and then B, assuming you have that full 18 months done and you have the full front book on there, is there anything with this new TMS, you know, being a whiz bang process that would stop from doing the full migration even in stage processes over six or 12 months?
Okay, there's a lot there. Let me make sure I caught my bit. I'll hand to Maile, then I'll do to Paul. Firstly, in terms of what we're trying to do, the message is we're trying to get ready, so we're trying to do everything that needs to be done to be able to give optionality for when you choose to move what groups and in what order. That's the first, and our intention is to move whole group customers is sort of the second message. T&S, do you want to.
Sure. We designed it from the start knowing we had Suncorp also coming down the pipe. We designed it from the start to be able to migrate customers in tranches. That was always part of the plan. Back to the element on reuse, Maile mentioned New Zealand is already reusing elements of the ANZ Plus stack in their transformation. The actual migration engine is also leveraging components of the ANZ stack. The orchestration used to coordinate that has all been built out. As Christine mentioned earlier, we're going to be pushing our staff through the migration journey in real life in June, from June onwards.
Specifically again we are making a choice to want to move customers when we have a solution for their whole of product. Right. That is a choice. As we go through it, if we find out that actually we do not need to do that, can we change it? Absolutely. At the moment the base case assumes that we will not move people. We are going to start moving people ahead of the 18 months because there are a number of people for whom all they have is savings and transaction products. We will move them. We are not going to wait to have the full front book necessarily or the full products we built before we start moving people. I do not know if that helps to.
That does. Thanks.
I think we're done. I don't want to cut.
Is it 20 minutes of Q&A?
I lied. We might go back to Brian to be fair. It's always an estimate at best.
Maile, this is a really simple question. When ANZ. When Westpac announced Project Unite they weren't going to change basically the deposit systems. The three they're now changing them going back to one. Can I just check this thing about the account numbers and the BSB, is that you're creating another layer in between that or is it genuinely you found the tech not to have to do that?
For our ANZ proposition, as you might know, it uses a different BSB today than the existing ANZ other propositions. The account numbers come industry standard account numbers, so they share the same account number structure. They are in the same general ledger already. The card numbers, what sits behind your card number, the Bank Identification Number, that tells the payments ecosystem what to do when you tap your card. Part of migration, what we are doing is we are changing the account types and telling the ANZ Plus system to treat those migrated cards and migrated accounts as if they were ANZ. The intention is to do the same with Suncorp in time as well so that it is seamless.
It's the same general ledger, the same account number, the BSB and the card, the card identification number behind the scenes change, but it's completely seamless for customers.
It is a layer. Sorry, it becomes important. There's not a layer, it's just the process change.
Just a process change. We are just telling the cards and the payments ecosystem to treat the account differently. For example, one of the key features of ANZ is the security features and the dynamic CVV, the three numbers on the back. We have to tell, for instance, the payments ecosystem to treat that migrated card as now an ANZ Plus card with those enhanced security features built in.
Fantastic. Thank you.