sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Citi analysts suggest the outcome of bank capital negotiations between ANZ and the RBNZ 'will be determinative for the sector' with proposed 5-year phase in period needing to be extended

Citi analysts suggest the outcome of bank capital negotiations between ANZ and the RBNZ 'will be determinative for the sector' with proposed 5-year phase in period needing to be extended

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


ANZ is clearly mis-managed, that is plain for all to see and they still continue to ship huge profits out of NZ.

RBNZ should not go out of their way to do them any favors

the irony is... They eventually will give in....

too big to fail is the good ole story...

We are building too many TBTFs in the recent times. Can a country also be TBTF ?

ANZ has been managed to maximise short term business growth, at the direction of the board of directors.

Time people woke up to the fact ANZ is some 65% plus owned by interests domiciled in the US, where Jonkey previous employer is also domiciled. Australian citizens only own 18% of ANZ. That's why they are being taken to the cleaners over there.

ANZ are the piggy in the middle.

RBNZ are telling them to hold more capital given the size of the business.
APRA are telling the parent they don't want too much capital tied with subsidiaries (ie ANZ NZ).

The only solution is for ANZ NZ to get smaller....reducing their NZ exposure, lending less money, resulting in less competition and ultimately higher rates paid by all.

Undoubtedly there are issues with how the bank is managed and the recent conduct issues.... but that has no bearing on the amount of capital the RBNZ want or how much APRA will allow them to hold.

Before it is assumed.. no I don't work for ANZ... but I know full well that ANZ being forced to take capital out of NZ will mean higher rates.

Again... the central problem is the RBNZ and APRA not talking to each other.


I have asked before Pragmatist, but I’d still like to know where you think the “NZ banks” are going to get the capital to expand in any meaningful way that is going to lessen Australian banks business in NZ. - careful what you wish for as AndyB is the one who actually understands the implications, and you really do need to school up on what “credit crunch” means for an economy if that happens.


Pragmatist...could you please clarify where the capital is coming from... please note that is different to funding,.

Bond issues.. not capital.
Transactional and Savings accounts... not capital
Term Deposits... not capital.

We are talking about equity.... and if the RBNZ are insisting banks have a lower return on equity... there will be less of it.

I fear if people don't understand the difference between capital and debt on a banks balance sheet then we are going to struggle to push the conversation forward.


Those bonds would not constitute capital in the new RBNZ rules. Even if they did count there is a cap as the RBNZ currently insist on a minimum level of Tier 1 capital... that is equity and retained earnings.

Could you explain your earlier comment that term deposits and transactional balances would contribute to capital?

Your statement on reducing competition makes no sense at all!

Who do you think is going to take over their market share? A smaller bank, which will gain efficiencies with a larger business, and be able to offer a more competitive rate for customers!!

If Sky TV left the NZ market but there market share was picked up by TV3 would you conclude that was good or bad for competition?

A market participant effectively being forced to reduce their exposure is bad for competition as their are less participants competing for that next additional piece of business.

Given no NZ bank has the capital base to pick up the business ANZ will have to exit (nor the ability to raise the capital they need to do so) this is without a doubt bad for the competitive pricing of the next mortgage/loan/term deposit/syndicated loan/farm loan hitting the market.

ANZ should never have been allowed to buy The National Bank.
It wouldn't be "too big to fail" and so market dominant.
The ComCom needs complete restructuring with a focus on the HHI index.

I agree completely, big error. NZ Super Fund have $43b under management with only 14% in NZ, the NZ$ is weak, time to bring some back to NZ and scale up Kiwibank.

I wonder... given the MOU between APRA and RBNZ.. did either of them inform each other of their policy proposals.... being RBNZ revised capital provisions and APRAs limit on foreign held capital.

To be clear.. the MOU between the RBNZ and APRA states "the authorities expect inform each other about major changes, including those that have a bearing on the activities of Cross-border establishments".

They may not tell the media, but Robertson should be asking if APRA were advised of the capital plans and if the RBNZ were told of APRA's capital restriction plans.

The MOU itself reads more like a divorce settlement than 2 regulators with common interests.... cant they just grow up and talk to each other?