RBNZ delays increase in Core Funding Ratio for banks to 75% from 70% by 6 months to Jan 1, 2013 due to volatile global funding markets

RBNZ delays increase in Core Funding Ratio for banks to 75% from 70% by 6 months to Jan 1, 2013 due to volatile global funding markets

By Bernard Hickey

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has warned that risks to New Zealand’s economy and financial system have increased in recent months because of the European financial crisis.

Releasing its half yearly Financial Stability Report (FSR), the Reserve Bank announced it would defer a planned increase in the Core Funding Ratio (CFR) for banks to 75% from 70% until January 1, 2013 from July 1, 2012.

This ratio was created by the Reserve Bank in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to improve the ability of New Zealand’s banks to cope with a freeze in short term international funding markets.

The ratio has forced banks to increase the amount of funding they obtain from term deposits in New Zealand and from longer term bond issues internationally.  It has forced them to reduce their reliance on ‘hot’ international money markets where ‘commercial paper’ funding is rolled over every 90 days.

The Reserve Bank said it was delaying the increase in the CFR to give the banks more flexibility if financial markets deteriorated further.

Deputy Governor Grant Spencer said the New Zealand banking system was better placed to weather the current market turbulence than at the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2008.

“The banks have increased their capital and liquidity buffers over the past few years.  They now have a stronger retail deposit base and their wholesale funding is at longer terms, making the banks less vulnerable to disruptions in offshore markets,” Spencer said.

“Given the current market tensions, however, the Reserve Bank has decided to defer by six months its planned further increase in the core funding ratio (CFR) which was to have occurred in July 2012,” Spencer said.

“It is now intended that the CFR will increase from 70 percent to 75 percent on 1 January 2013, giving the banks more latitude in managing their funding programmes.”

The FSR (page 15) shows that about NZ$15 billion of longer term bank funding, which currently qualifies for the CFR, is expected to move to shorter terms over the next 12 months.

The bank said new issues of longer term debt or additional local term deposit funding was required in coming months to maintain core funding levels.

“New covered bonds are likely to provide some of this funding, as covered bond have generally continued to function well with little change in spreads,” the bank said in the FSR.

“However, banks may only encumber up to 10% of their assets as collateral in covered bonds. Thus covered bonds will only be able to provide a portion of bank funding needs, requiring banks to raise unsecured long term funding or additional retail funding as market conditions allow.”

Greek contagion

Spencer said financial systems in many countries remained under stress because of an overhang of private and public debt, particularly in Europe where there was a fear of contagion from Greece.

This has made access to offshore debt markets more challenging for New Zealand’s banks, he said.

“In New Zealand, households and businesses have been containing debt, which has helped to reduce the country’s overall external imbalance.  However, these efforts have been offset, in part, by rising levels of public debt,” he said.

Elsewhere, the Reserve Bank warned the government needed to continue its budget tightening and that both households and farmers remained vulnerable to a sharp economic slowdown because of their high debts.

Here is RBNZ Deputy Governor Grant Spencer on why the CFR hike was delayed:

(Updates with economic weather report video, video of Grant Spencer)

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.

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.

42 Comments

Lower interest rates ahead, as the CFR needs take the pressure of locally sourced funds.

Now do you believe me?

I warned you this would happen. The banks dictate the policies and the RBNZ go along with it.

The entire economy is nothing but a credit bloated farce that operates as a cash cow for the big banks...protected by the RBNZ and govt policies.

You can make this worse for yourself by borrowing from a bank....."Your 'country'(bank) needs you to borrow"......harrrhahahaaahahaaa

Maybe a first for me. I am agreeing with Wolly. Choke.

Welcome to the dark side Brushy...mind your head on the bomb shelter door...

I was going to put a post up yesterday to say I bet the banks bully the RB into a delay.  Kicking myself, as missed my chance to appear prescient.

But totally predictable.

So yes, I agree with Wolly for a change too. 

Cheers

Crikey Philly...didn't you place a 'short bet' on that...think of the profits...tax free...would have boosted the GDP...

Well your not the only one been shouting it from the rooftops Wolly, as farback as I've posted here  i've been aware of the toady behavior of Bolly inculding bowing to his Minister.

 Dovish...?...piss weak.

Too Big To Fail

Too Big To Bail

Too Big To Control

Wolly, Wolly, on the wall, who is the biggest lobbyist(s) of all ?

Hmmmm....that's a tough one icon...I can see so many from up here on the wall...Pound for pound I'll pick the banks!

Is that the second back down by Bollard?

Just another excuse to let his mates have an easy ride.

"households and businesses have been containing debt------------, these efforts have been offset, in part, by rising levels of public debt,”

Offset in part?

Government borrowing at around 8% of GDP plus private sector around 1.5% is almost equal to the multi decade, double digit debt growth that is now destroying economies around the world. How can anyone spin this as a deleveraging?

Buuuuut, aren't both major political parties saying we'll be back in surplus soon? Then clearing debt? They've both said it. Guess it doesn't matter which way I vote then. We'll be alright either way :P

Well, that's what the guy who sold them the magic beans said. 

The question is what the total debt outstanding in each sector is.

If private households are owe 100 dollars and pay back 15% that's a material develerage of $15.

To counter the government might borrow 8%, being $8 to counteract the net effect on the economy.

But that still leaves a net $7 deleverage.

You are correct but I think you've misunderstood me, Ralph, or my post wasn't clear. 8% + 1.5%=9.5% increase in debt.

You can access the figures on the RBNZ website. They do need to be compared to nominal GDP but then that includes Government spending so it's even worse.

 

Oh sorry, I haven't check the particulars.  If that's the case then not much deleverging in that period!

Checking the figures as follows:

RBNZ quote that goverment corporate sector debt contracted from $217,348 million to $213,079 million and government debt expanded from $36,159 million to $40,803 million to June 2011.

That's a net increase of $375 million.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/extfin/e3/data.html

Statistics NZ figures as at March 31st:

Net international liabilities were $148.2 billion, down 10.4 billion from December 2010.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/balance_of...

That E3 chart shows a total liability of $254B, so what is the difference between that and the net internationaly liabilities? I think I can see, but I had a couple of beers for lunch so help me out here. Do the two compound?

Column one is Corporate debt, column two is government debt and column three is the total of both.

I mean the disparity between the stats department figures & the RBNZ ones.

254B vs 148B, for what seems like the same thing.

Oops, quite.

The RBA figure is gross and the Statistics figure is net I believe.  But I could easily be wrong on that!

So actually my post is incorrect in that I said net on the RBA figures.

Reason I ask is because I figured out a while back that M3 is less than the total overseas debt.

Now the other appears to be an investment position to my fuzzy brain, which looks to me like overseas interests in NZ business greater than our international positions. Perhaps a separate quantity being measured and If that is correct, then where do we find the money to buy it back when they want out? Or am I off the mark here?

This financial crisis is better than the terrorism threat a few years ago, you can use it as an excuse to do all sorts of things.

It's also good as an excuse to ruin your environment like National love to use it for, deep sea drilling, that we haven't a hope in hell of containing if something goes wrong.
Pushing through irrigations schemes at the tax payers expense, that will ruin our lakes and rivers, for a few already rich dairy farmers.

Now helping banks profits and allowing them to continue risky banking practises, the very thing the funding ratio it is meant to be trying to protect against.

The GFC is such an awesome excuse.

Yes philthy, but do you think Labour would have acted any differently should they have got elected? They permitted mining in areas designated as Natural Reserves, they were working with oil companies to survey the Great Southern Basin offshore from Southland, they gave a Chinese multinational the rights to mine ironsands from the seabed....

Philthy:  "Pushing through irrigations schemes at the tax payers expense ... for a few already rich dairy farmers"

Yes, & no tax on their windfall capital gains, thanx to our crazy regime - so the generous taxpayer won't get any payback of any kind

Cheers.

 

The financial crisis *IS* terrorism.

Updated with video of Grant Spencer during press conference on why the CFR hike was delayed

So Spencer wants to continue the property investing machine.

He doesn't want to further encourage local cash deposits by offering better deposit rates.

How come the banks can still offer mortgages in excess of 80% at rates that could not be sustained longer term?

Looks like John Key's little helper is busy.

 

They knew about the downgrade...Basel B 3.....

I do not KNOW whethehr its pressure from the banks in a deliberate sense but it doesn't look good and Sharpes explanation is concerning. ????

 

pssssssssst wanna know what is on the table in Bolly's office right this minute!

 http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/11/banks-define-new-rules-to-show-they-are.html

Well at least the price of oil is coming down to ease the pain a bit.

$95 is hardly a drop...yet......want to take a bet how low it goes?   $30? $25? $20? I think we will see $20...assuming anyone is actually still shipping it....ie I expect Saudi to collapse and "disappear"....

regards

Ahh yes, but will that help when we are being rogered left right and centre?

Nope it will make things worse....I fully expect that oil will become scarce and rationed...."new" oil is now mostly over $60 a barrel to extract.....in fact $85 seems closer to the mark......we cant prosper much above that $85 and without being able to grow we will just fumble along and no one will invest in risky new oil fields with no reasonable chance of pay back....so petrol rationing seems very likely IMHO. 

 

regards

 

rationed? Wait until the missiles start raining down on Iran. The increase in rhetoric is alarming, nothing like a good war for a diversion. Also a good time for Israel to act given the diversions elsewhere. It isn't looking good, and if it isn't than then I expect it elsewhere.

The Middle East scarfie has always been a bug looking for a windscreen...always will be....war is 100% certainty somewhere in the region....First to slip in after the dust and radiation settles will be the crooks from the Kremlin after the oil.

Sure will solve the worlds overpop problem though.....

Signs of a fading empire.....the US cant hold down every oil state in the world but it seems it intends to try.....while I think Iran is somewhat extreme I cant blame them for wanting a nuclear weapon where the "west" is clearly itching to invade, its a 1st class deterent......bomb Tehran, we wipe out San Fransicso (say)....nuclear suicide bomber with a (large) suitcase....

regards

 

When they get to a .5% OCR the world will already be at war for a THIRD time. Protecting the indebted fools who fell hook line and sinker for the global property ponzi scheme is all they care about. It's over folks, when your in a corner then YOU MUST FIGHT. Don't wait for government heroes! Their ain't any