Interesting table however I think a few points should be made. (which incidentally don't disagree with conclusion)
I presume these are on raw SP numbers which obviously would not take into account any capital returned from any divestments or for that matter include any Dividend return?
I also think the figures from 10 years onward a more relevant as going back 30 years brings into account performance at that time which was vastly different for each bank!
The early '90's saw the "recession we had to have" and of course CBA only floated in 1991 so is a bit of an anomaly and perhaps explains the disparity.
It is also relevant that ANZ & WBC were significantly more affected during that recession than NAB which was a much more conservative bank at the time and risk appetite much less than the others. (Westpac was actually also dealing not only with the recession but still with the fall out of the foreign currency scandal of the 1980's!!)
Anyone on here who was around at the time I am sure will remember that WBC SP by late 1992 had fallen to around $2.50 and there was very real concern that the bank was looking at collapse. ANZ SP fell to a similar level however NAB SP was relatively strong in the high $6's and of course CBA SP had been reasonably steady around the $6's since the float. I know there has also been capital returns such as when NAB exited Clydesdale & Yorkshire bank but I didn't bother checking back for others.
This obviously skews the performance of each bank if comparing from that specific year along with economic conditions and why I think the shorter 10 year time frame is a truer indication of performance.
This does not detract from the relative overall performance of the Banks and certainly WBC performance has been poor for a long time.
I just thought a quick comment on history may provide a bit of context and also may bring back some memories for some on here who have been around for a while...........
(20min delay)