Offers for readers

The comment stream

Recent comments

Join the Interest community to be a registered commenter so you can:
- Edit your comments
- Avoid the CAPTCHA
- Vote on comments
Register Here

Already registered? log back in here ..

Forgotten your password? No problem! Click here

Finance sector jobs

Corporate Recovery Senior – Australia, Audit experience welcomed
Successful applicants will have the opportunity to work with this leading Australian Advis...more
Australia
Transaction Services Assistant Manager/ Manager – Melbourne
Think Global Recruitment is working with this exceptionally respected Australian Boutique ...more
Australia
Audit Senior - Australia
Sought after opportunity to move to one of the most beautiful westernised countries in the...more
Australia
Research & Master Trust Relationship Manager
Strategic and Senior Appointment...more
Australia
efinancialcareers.com

Reader poll

Who do you think should be appointed Reserve Bank Governor to replace Alan Bollard when he retires in September?

Choices

Rules tightened for guarantee for finance company deposits

Posted in News

The Reserve Bank and Treasury have announced a tightening of the rules allowing non-bank deposit takers such as finance companies, building societies and credit union to access the government's deposit guarantee scheme.

Here's the full statement below with the details.

The details include information about tighter requirements on non-bank deposit takers; a fee for finance companies that are rated below BB or unrated; rating requirements for new entrants; coverage of non-resident depositors with New Zealand branches of overseas banks; senior debt requirements; and the approval process.

The scheme will cover all retail deposits of participating New Zealand-registered banks and retail deposits by locals in non-bank deposit-taking entities, and is designed to give assurance to New Zealand depositors in the current uncertain international financial market conditions.

Reserve Bank Governor Dr Alan Bollard and Acting Secretary to The Treasury Dr Peter Bushnell noted today that "as the retail deposit guarantee scheme is being implemented, a number of policy issues are arising that are being addressed".

Decisions have now been made to:

* Tighten the requirements upon non-bank deposit takers

The deed for non-bank deposit-takers will be tailored to contain tighter controls including:

- limiting potential for stripping out funds through, for example,
dividends, or payments to related parties;
- increasing reporting requirements and allowing the Crown to
appoint an inspector; and
- enabling an assessment of whether business behaviour is taking
place that would then result in breach of the terms of the guarantee

In addition there will be personal undertakings required from directors.

* Introduce a fee for non-rated finance companies

A fee of 300 basis points per annum will be charged monthly to finance companies that are rated below BB or are unrated (on the cumulative growth in the book since 12 October 2008).

* Require all new entrants to the scheme to be rated BBB- or better

New entrant requirements (eg companies seeking to come into the scheme that were not in existence or ineligible on 12 October 2008) must be BBB- rated or better in order to be eligible to apply to join the scheme.

* Cover non-resident depositors in New Zealand branches of overseas banks as at 12 October 2008

Non-resident deposits in New Zealand branches of overseas banks will be brought into guarantee coverage.

However, the guarantee is limited to the total amount of the non-resident deposit base as at 12 October 2008 and up to a further 10 percent per year of that deposit value (to cover for interest and any variation in deposit level).

* Ensure that deposits with building societies and credit unions are covered

As building societies and credit unions issue subordinated debt the deed will ensure such deposits are covered by the guarantee. Subordinated debt issued by other entities will not be covered.

* Include collective investment schemes (with certain conditions)

As announced earlier in the week, it has also been decided to include, with certain conditions, collective investment schemes (CIS) that invest solely in government debt or institutions subject to a government guarantee and in debt of non-bank guaranteed institutions to the level held on 12 October 2008.

Dr Bushnell said: "While no applications have been approved yet, once the final deeds are made available (tonight and tomorrow), the Treasury will work quickly to ensure that applications are processed and approvals made public. We expect this process to take a matter of days."

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment in the box on the right or click on the "'Register" link at the bottom of the comments. Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making these comments.

10 Comments

OK looks like they are

OK looks like they are starting to wake up. Companies not eligible on 12 Oct 2008 means finance companies currently in breach of their trust deeds will need to not only amend their trust deeds with the consent of their depositers, but seek a rating also.

Also with subordinated debt not being covered the bogus 're-capitalisation' proposals that have been floated are not going to cut it so easily.

Makes more sense! One question

Makes more sense!

One question regarding the cover of non-resident depositors. Does

"Non-resident deposits in New Zealand branches of overseas banks will be brought into guarantee coverage.
However, the guarantee is limited to the total amount of the non-resident deposit base as at 12 October 2008"

mean that any deposit made by non residents with Kiwibank after 12 october will be covered?

The deposit guarantee scheme was

The deposit guarantee scheme was introduced as a safeguard not for the non-bank sector but to protect the bank sector from a run on funds.

Lets set the record straight here; the banks have been touting high interest rate call accounts for years. Despite warnings from the RBNZ on numerous occasions they have not altered there borrowing practices. Secondly the Aussie banks have increased lending to the residential housing market massively over the last 6-7 years. Lending long, borrowing short with some shonky valuation policies thrown in. A recipe for disaster.

The banks have sucked the finance industry dry. They have bleated on about credit ratings etc.. and used this as a means to gain a competitive advantage. The international credit crunch relates specifically to banks and property.

The finance sector debacle is a separate issue unique to New Zealand. Don't confuse the two.

Now the bank executives cry fowl that the finance sector may get an advantage. To a large extent the banks started the ball rolling by reducing credit. Pulling finance company funding lines overnight, or cancelling overdrafts after raping the sector for many years.

THE RESERVE BANK CLEARLY DESPISES THE NON-BANK FINANCE SECTOR AND PANDERS TO THE AUSSIE BANKS. THEY SPINLESS.

My opinion is that the finance sector is now completely f#!&* ed. The rules of supply and demand, and the efficient market hypothesis are irrelevant.

ALL investors may as well get government stock. The guarantee is a joke and inequitable in every way conceivable

Well managed finance companies will

Well managed finance companies will be strengthened by this. And investors will gain more confidence, particularly with this clause

"The deed for non-bank deposit-takers will be tailored to contain tighter controls including:

- limiting potential for stripping out funds through, for example,
dividends, or payments to related parties;"

No longer the anomaly of high dividends to share holders then nothing left in the kitty for depositors.

I hope all our NZ finance companies can find a way to opt in

all good, the efficiencies of

all good, the efficiencies of small, and to-and-fro debate..

I take the two year operation period is retained..?

Many finance companies exploited the

Many finance companies exploited the innocent public luring with bit higher interest without wholly revealing the risks. Risk premiums must be very high if finance cannot be obtained from banks or by way of share capital. The reasons for the failure of the finance companies are bad management, lack of diversification etc. Why would the Government protect unrated or lowly graded companies? The current RBNZ move is in the right direction.

This is imho the right

This is imho the right direction. Ordinary savers are the last to know what is going on. Now deposit takers have figure out amongst themselves (RBNZ) who are worthy of the guarantee. Not a bad idea to not limit to the big banks, they have too much control over the market already (more fees anyone?).

Problem What happens in two

Problem
What happens in two years. How is this phased out.

Anyone want to take out a two year term deposit maturing the day after the guarantee is destined to finish. I don't think so! As we get closer to the date terms offered will get shorter and shorter. But there won't be any long term lending right? What is this going to do to 2 year and over interest and mortgage rates.

Anyone from First NZ Capital like to tell us how AIA's 8 year $80 mill 8% bond issue is going.

Note this weeks cancelled $4mill bond issue by the Government. Next is scheduled for October 30th. Watch this space.

Imagine if this guarantee scheme had been in place the last 2 years and was expiring on Friday. I hope a lot of thought goes into this as we could be digging a bigger hole however well meaning the intention.

Can anybody explain the little

Can anybody explain the little "on the cumulative growth in the book since 12 October 2008" taggedon to the 3% fee. Does this mean the unrated or lowly rated finance co's only pay the fee based on the growth of their deposit book since 12/10? or would it be on the balance at that date. Anyone know? Cheers

This ha hoo regarding Finance

This ha hoo regarding Finance companies vs.Banks seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.To what extend are the Banks invested in Finance companies,what about 100% mortgages,CDO's etc.?Has their business behaviour really been that superior?
After Bridgecorp all Finance companies suffered from high withdrawals and low reinvestment wich pushed many over the edge.Where would the Banks be without the gigantic injection of Funds and guarantees now actioned globally.Don't think the Banks decisions have been prudent.
cheers