In this section
Offers for readers
Follow the news from interest
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20821
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 295
- ››
Finance sector jobs
Lead from the front utilising your strategic, technical and leadership qualities within th...more
New Zealand
Lead from the front utilising your technical expertise in this highly attractive senior li...more
New Zealand
Customer focus, high performance, exceeding client expectations and achieving profitable g...more
New Zealand
Key leadership position in the bank. Be a part of one of the fastest growing banks in New ...more
New Zealand

The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- English defends current account blowout 59
- Govt eyes NZ$1.4b revenue grab 58
- 90 seconds at 9 am 51
- Thursday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 38
- Budget 2012 reactions 37
- Friday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 25
- 90 seconds at 9 am 22
- Door open for covered bonds from non-banks 22
- What covered bonds mean for ma and pa 18
- ASB cuts 6, 18 mth mortgage rates 17
Most viewed
Treasury amends deposit guarantee scheme to allow guaranteed and non guaranteed deposits (Update 2)
Treasury has announced changes to the deposit guarantee deeds signed by New Zealand banks, finance companies and other deposit takers to allow them to offer both guaranteed and non-guaranteed deposits from January 1, 2010. (Update 2 includes Marac Finance saying it will sign up to the new deed) The changes also create a new 14 day stand-down period between any default and the trigger for the government guarantee so an institution can fix its problems and avoid receivership. Any institution wanting to keep its guarantee for deposits made after January 1 must sign the new trust deeds by December 4. Marac Finance said it would sign up to the new deed.Here is the full Treasury statement below with a questions and answers sheet.
The Treasury is changing the terms and conditions of the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme to make it more flexible for deposit taking institutions, while continuing to protect current depositors. "Existing investments by eligible depositors are not affected by these changes; they continue to benefit from the current Crown guarantee," Brian McCulloch, Treasury's Director of Financial Operations said. "The Crown stands fully behind its guarantee commitments and the safety net remains in place," Dr McCulloch said. The Treasury has contacted all institutions participating in the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme to inform them of the changes and will this week send out replacement Deeds of Guarantee that include the revised terms and conditions. The revised deeds clarify various arrangements that may arise if a deposit taking institution defaults. In particular, the revised deeds being sent to all institutions will: allow participating institutions to offer both guaranteed and non-guaranteed debt securities; * allow a 14 day "stand down" between a potential default and invoking the Crown guarantee, which could provide time for the institution to resolve issues and avoid receivership; * allow the Crown to set a timeframe for claims to be made after a default. "This change provides greater flexibility for deposit taking entities and improves consistency between the current scheme which ends on 12 October 2010 and the extension scheme that will operate from 12 October 2010 until 31 December 2011," Dr McCulloch said. Institutions participating in the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme have until 4 December 2009 to accept the revised deeds, which will then come into effect on 1 January 2010. If an institution declines to sign the revised deed then new deposits or investments after 1 January 2010 will not be guaranteed but existing eligible deposits made prior to 1 January 2010 will continue to benefit from the existing Crown guarantee until expiry of the current Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme on 12 October 2010, unless those deposits become due and payable earlier. "Institutions will decide for a number of reasons whether or not to participate in the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme under the revised provisions for a number of reasons. As always, we recommend that depositors and investors ensure that they are well advised about their investments and make sure they understand their investment choices before they make any commitments," Dr McCulloch said. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Will my deposits or investments made before 1 January 2010 still be guaranteed? Yes. For deposits made prior to 1 January 2010, eligible depositors will continue to benefit from the existing Crown guarantee until the expiry of the current Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme on 12 October 2010 unless those deposits become due and payable earlier, regardless of whether or not the institution continues to participate in the scheme. Will my deposits or investments made after 1 January 2010 still be guaranteed? Yes, so long as your financial institution has signed the revised deed. In those instances, eligible depositors will continue to benefit from the Crown guarantee for guaranteed new deposits or investments made on or after 1 January 2010 and existing deposits or investments that are rolled over on or after that date, until the expiry of the current Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme on 12 October 2010 unless those deposits become due and payable earlier. Institutions could offer both guaranteed and non-guaranteed investments. How will I know if an investment or deposit is guaranteed? Institutions are required to inform investors whether or not the investment that they are making is guaranteed or non-guaranteed. This information must be included in the institution's investment statement or prospectus. Why have you put the 14 day stand-down period in the deeds? This is to allow time for an institution that is facing temporary issues to resolve those issues before reaching a point where it defaults. Allowing a brief period to resolve temporary issues protects the interests of depositors, the institution and the Crown. Why have you set timeframes for making claims after a default? Setting a timeframe will improve operation of the scheme, including facilitating prompt payments to creditors by the receivers of any firm that has defaulted. What other changes are included in the revised deeds? Can I see the revised deeds? The revised deeds and questions and answers relating to the revised deeds may be viewed here Why are you doing this now? The Crown has been reviewing the terms of the Guarantee Deed in light of the experience of the Deposit Guarantee Scheme's first year of operation. These alterations help protect the interests of depositors, institutions and the Crown while making the operation of the scheme more flexible. How will I know if my institution is participating in the Deposit Guarantee Scheme? How does this fit with the extended scheme, after 12 October 2010? This is a separate process from the previously announced extension of the scheme from 12 October 2010 to 31 December 2011 but institutions that do not sign up to the revised deed will not be eligible to join the extension scheme.
23 Comments
Bernard - a technical point
Bernard - a technical point - during the 14 day stand down period does the interest accrued continue to be guaranteed?
Thus if Bank X defaults on Jan 1st, takes the full 14 days to try and fix things, but still fails to do so resulting in the government guarantee being activated on Jan 14th one assumes the investors interest is covered up until the 14th (ie it does not stop being guaranteed on the 1st)?
If you want to see
If you want to see probably the biggest sentence ever written, check out point 'C' on page 1 of the revised deed. (Can't copy and paste because the pdf is locked, and it's too big anyway).
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/guarantee/pdfs/ut-sch-am-deed-nom.pdf
Deposit Guarantees are a silly
Deposit Guarantees are a silly idea. They are slippery slope to the death spiral that is Risk. How can the masses dictate which institutions should fail buy voting with their monies? Also studies have shown that deposit insurance is direct responsible to the "too big too fail mentality". Very Dangerous!!
And Andy, we have a
And Andy, we have a call in with Treasury on your question.
Cheers
Alex
<i>Troy Says: November 18th, 2009
Troy Says:
November 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Deposit Guarantees are a silly idea.
Other countries have had them for years on banks. If we didn't put them in place, people would have made a run on the banks.
@Rob Bank runs are much
@Rob
Bank runs are much easier to adjust for then systemic problems like "too big too fail". Event he FDIC is now broke so there isn't any of data saying these schemes actually work. There is plenty of data that says the opposite. If you force me to take a deposit guarantee you take away my option of democratization. I can no longer voice my economic opinion by taking my money away and going to another financial institution. You are also promoting the idea of shadow banking since now banks can trade guarantees like a CDS
The idea that NZ should do something because everyone else is doing it is very childish. If little Johnny jumps off a bridge should NZ follow?
@Rob Contrary to your assertion,
@Rob
Contrary to your assertion, the NZ big banks were not suffering runs, see my :
More evidence NZ Big Banks had Ample Funding During the Crisis
http://davidhillary.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-evidence-nz-big-banks-had-...
If you look at the evidence, and the treasury and RBNZ advice, and the RBNZ later reports on the period, you will see that there was no liquidity crisis and no runs on NZ big banks. Treasury and RBNZ recommended against the scheme, and said it wasn't needed on Friday, and then on Sunday Dr Cullen introduced it in a worse form. Governments bailing out banks or granting them guarantees should be unconstitutional.
Even if there was a big bank in trouble here, that doesn't make it right to put taxpayer resources into fixing the problem, after all the RBNZ can restructure a failed big bank with creditor (depositor) funds and re-open it within a day or two. But, despite that, since there was no runs and no faltering large banks, why rescue them?
Wasn't there informed comment a
Wasn't there informed comment a while back by several bloggers that one of the big 4 was on the verge of a run during the height of the crisis? I believe Bernard also picked up on this? Can't recall exact details - if those relevant are around?
Dont forget - had the RBNZ not followed the Australians a heck of a lot of money would have crossed the Tasman into secured deposits over there at the height of the crisis - I believe it was the Aussie move as much as anything that forced our hand. My cash would have certainly flown across....
Andy, there was a rumour
Andy, there was a rumour that BNZ was close to using its contingency plan for not being able to raise funds in the offshore CP market, mentioned by Stuart Nash MP - Financial Alarmist (on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme) see http://davidhillary.blogspot.com/2009/10/stuart-nash-mp-financial-alarmi...
It wasn't an issue of
It wasn't an issue of runs on banks. There was intense uncertainty and behind the scenes speculation that could have turned ugly.
During those weeks in September and October I was bombarded with emails and phone calls from worried depositers in one large bank. I didn't think their concerns were justified and I agree with David (and the RBNZ) that there was plenty of liquidity and capital.
However, there was also an awful lot of NZ$100 bills withdrawn from ATMs that have yet to be returned.
I think the Deposit Guarantee was unavoidable. In the end we didn't really have a choice. The Australians insisted and we had to go along because the Australians essentially underwrite our economy through our banking system.
John Key is talking about single currency because of those discussions he has had with Rudd.
cheers
Bernard
Andy, Investors needed to look
Andy,
Investors needed to look at the individual trust deeds with the finance co and trustee, as every one will be different regarding interest payments if a default is triggered.
Cheers
Alex
Bernard, We didn't have a
Bernard,
We didn't have a choice because Dr Cullen, againt advice, made a choice for us. Most people are fooled into believing that during a crisis, the government should have more powers, because it can be trusted to use those for the public good. But governments use crises to grab more power, they want to protect and be seen to be the saviour.
Now that the choice was made for us, do you think the government can be credible in its claim that creditors and financial institutions should behave as if they won't be bailed out? The government's credibility is now SHOT. The only way we can fix things now is to make it unconstitutional and illegal for government to be providing guarantees for or credit to or financial support for businesses in trouble. With Jonkey suggesting that even an appliance maker like F&P won't be allowed to go to the wall, there is almost no chance this will happen.
Should we regulate and intervene because other countries do? This is bad public policy, and at the level of jumping off cliffs. (see my http://davidhillary.blogspot.com/2008/10/regulating-because-other-countr... )
If you really think about it, NZ didn't need to provide the guarantee, even if Australia did. If the commonwealth government is supporting the funding of the Australian parents, NZ big banks can free ride on it. The Australian banks aren't going to let a NZ subsidiary go under unless it is really on the brink of failure itself, in which case the commonwealth government would have helped it, averting problems here.
And you don't think the financial system can't handle the failure of a registered bank? You think the RBNZ can't creditor-recapitalise a big bank and re-open it within a day or a few days? (Someone in RBNZ responsible for this says it could have been done).
Not that this was really in prospect anyway, which you said you agree with, which makes me wonder why you think it was necessary to help those who didn't need it?
David, Fair comment. I'm no
David,
Fair comment. I'm no fan of bailouts and the moral hazard it creates. You may be right that we could have coped. We'll never know. But those amazing few weeks a year ago are still fresh in my mind.
Bad things happen when people are that nervous.
On the BNZ mention in parliament, I don't think Nash's comments say much more than all the banks had contingency plans. I know all the banks were doing similar, which doesn't imply any of them were near collapse. They were just getting prepared for being cut off from the international wholesale markets. They all still had massive funding and capital lines to their parents. One of them was near its limits under Australian prudential rules, but that was rule that I'm sure would have been bent under pressure.
The Australian parents would have defended their NZ units. They have too much invested here. I think too the concerns about a flood of funds across Australia is overplayed. They would have gone to the Australian parents who would have shuffled it straight back across the Tasman.
The more I write the more I think we would have been fine.
I just can't get out of my memory all the desperate phone calls I got from little old ladies asking if their money was safe.
cheers
Bernard
I guess that settles it
I guess that settles it then. The little old ladies who don't know the difference between an AA rated bank and an unrated property development finance company vs. us wise young men who do. But I think Dr Cullen was a little old lady inside?
I'd have thought the Cullen
I'd have thought the Cullen guarantee had nothing to do with the big banks but everything to do with the finance companies. I'd have thought that in many cases the 'survival' of these second tier lending institutions was in the best interest of the big banks.
So the guarantee provided a means for Government to (possibly) fund its risk on finance company failures through the guarantee charges levied on the big banks.
And of course, we still don't know whether that fund will or won't cover the 'position' the taxpayers have taken (thanks to the Government).
Cullen ...........Who ? Failed policies
Cullen ...........Who ? Failed policies from the past . Got no time for that . Far too funny watching new ones being created in the here and now . ETS anyone ?
"ETS anyone ?" Yes, why
"ETS anyone ?"
Yes, why not. I'll trade you the right to fart 1 cc for $100!
Good for South Canty Finance
Good for South Canty Finance this.
David Hillary, Try to imagine...
David Hillary,
Try to imagine...
If you had a trust account with a large bank for 20+ years, always had larger transactions signed off promptly and without questioning the validity of the transfer, then suddenly get several really silly excuses for not executing a transfer of a significant amount of money, would you not get nervous and wonder if the bank actually has your funds available?
A bank manager letting you wait like a school boy for an hour or more, on more than one occasion, and giving you all sorts of funny reasons why 'some legal paperwork of the trust' is not in order (despite reassurances from your trust lawyer that it is!), because you want to get most of your money out of that bank surely makes anyone with a bit of brain sit up, worry and speculate what's going on...
CTNZ, sure, bankers even consider
CTNZ, sure, bankers even consider avoiding long lines at tellers to avoid the look of a bank run. However, it appears your experience was not caused by the bank's financial difficulty but something else, although from your point of view you would not have known that at the time.
It is important<a href="http://www.globaltimberland.com/timberla
It is importantwaterproof hiking boots
to sort out all expenses to determine which correspond to a specific product, locationmens waterproof boots
or customer, which are allocable basedwaterproof boots women
on workload, usage or some other cost driver, and which expenses are accumulated centrally for the benefit of the company as a whole. By determining whethertimberland pro
the costs are accurately accounted for, a comparisontimberland for kids
between product, customer or location may point to a specific cost that needs attention.
Jamie spends time at a
Jamie spends time at a rodeotall ugg boots
in Cody, before heading upstate intored Classic Tall Boots
the mountains to try and cut it on a working cattle ranch. He cooks for proper cowboys, rides out into the wilderness and even sleeps rough undegold UGG Classic Tall
r the stars!
Explore the site to find some gorgeous chocolate Ugg Stripes Classic Tall Boots
Wild West recipes inspired by the state and theyellow Ugg Stripes Classic Tall Boots
people, read interviews with some of the people Jamie met and check out the bonus footage and pictures
David, I work for the
David, I work for the BNZ.
Cullen knew that a GG was un-necessary and even counter-productive ("If the govt. needs to guarantee my term deposit...then woah, things at ANZ/Westpac/BNZ, etc. must be really bad......), but honestly, there was complete PARANOIA at the time.... restoring confidence had to be done to calm the masses and the Minister of Finance was the only guy to do it.
Bernard.....I remember the little old ladies all too well....