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

RBNZ says likes of loan-to-value restrictions, capital buffers are possible ways to help cool future overheating credit cycle

RBNZ says likes of loan-to-value restrictions, capital buffers are possible ways to help cool future overheating credit cycle

Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard says the central bank has identified several macro-prudential tools such as Loan-to-Value restrictions and counter-cyclical capital buffers it would consider using, potentially in tandem, to moderate a future overheating credit boom.

In a speech Bollard is making in Sydney today he says the Reserve Bank has been assessing a range of macro-prudential instruments over the past year that might have a role to play in contributing to broader financial stability in New Zealand. He says whilst these may help boost financial system resilience and possibly moderate credit cycles, expectations should be realistic about what can be achieved.

"A strong micro-prudential framework – focused on ensuring the balance sheets of individual institutions are robust to shocks – is still essential for a robust financial system, and remains at the heart of New Zealand’s efforts to maintain stability in the financial system," says Bollard.

His speech comes after the Reserve Bank said in November's Financial Stability Report that although a large number of macro-prudential tools were under discussion internationally, only a small number could have a future role in New Zealand. These include adjustments to the Core Funding Ratio, the use of counter-cyclical capital requirements broadly along the lines of the international Basel III proposals, adjustments to capital risk weights for particular sectors, and measures targeted specifically at the housing market such as restrictions on Loan-to-Value ratios.

In today's speech Bollard says while none of the macro-prudential instruments the central bank has considered would be a silver bullet in terms of moderating a credit cycle, some could make a useful contribution.

"It may be the case that macro-prudential tools could be employed more effectively to influence the credit cycle by adopting a multi-pronged approach where several tools are employed in tandem. For example, faced with evidence of excessive credit growth, counter-cyclical capital requirements could be used alongside increases in the Core Funding Ratio, and this might represent a more even-handed approach than focusing on either one alone," says Bollard. (Also see banks face at least two CFR increases).

"This approach might even be supplemented by a more targeted instrument such as a Loan-to-Value restriction. Using multiple tools in this fashion would also tend to reinforce the signalling effect on lenders and borrowers."

However, he says realism as to what can be achieved is needed.

"Even if credit cycles can be moderated, they will not be eliminated."

There had been no pressing need to use macro-prudential instruments to better manage the credit cycle of late given recent weakness in the credit cycle.

"However, we do need to keep preparing for how we might deal with credit and asset price booms when they recur in the future," Bollard says. "Our work so far on macro-prudential instruments suggests that we should keep our expectations modest, but we have identified several tools that we would contemplate using in the right circumstances."

He notes past "periods of unsustainably strong credit growth and asset price cycles" which have had damaging effects on the economy and the financial system. 

"We will certainly face similar developments in the future, so we want to develop our macro-prudential toolkit now to enhance our ability to deal with them when the time comes,' says Bollard.

Rapid credit and asset price growth had amplified general economic cycles and made monetary policy’s task of controlling inflation more difficult.

"We have seen the difficulties that can arise when interest rates alone are used," Bollard says.

"The collateral damage to the net export sector from the high New Zealand dollar exchange rate during the previous economic upswing prompted a search for potential tools to assist monetary policy. Now, in light of the broader and significant social and macroeconomic costs arising from financial system distress in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, there is greater will to consider additional tools."

However, he also notes that the Reserve Bank wants credit to be able to support economic growth.

Here's Bollard discussing specific tools:

While our work is ongoing, we would offer the following preliminary conclusions:

Credit-based tools

A range of credit-based tools has been used by the emerging economies, especially in Asia, for many years. They include a wide range of regulated caps, targets and limits. These tools are receiving increased attention by the advanced economies. Of these tools, we have looked specifically at loan-to-value restrictions.

Loan-to-Value Restrictions

Loan-to-Value restrictions (or LVRs) have been used by a number of countries in response to excessive credit growth and overheated housing markets and, on balance, appear to have met with some success. Such a tool could be particularly useful in circumstances when funding and credit margins move counter-cyclically, and so reduce the effectiveness of liquidity and capital requirements in braking credit growth during a boom. Another advantage would be that an LVR restriction could be imposed and enforced relatively swiftly, given that banks would require longer operational lead times to meet higher liquidity and capital requirements. However, the use of non-price or administrative restrictions is subject to greater long-term enforcement and disintermediation risks. Moreover, we are not aware of any instances where LVR restrictions have been applied to sectors other than housing.

Accounting-based tools

Expected Loss Provisioning

Expected loss provisioning is a return to the more forward-looking (and less pro-cyclical) standards of the 1990s, where general provisions may be based on the expected loss over the life of a portfolio of loans, rather than current loss experience. The two international accounting boards – the IASB and the FASB – have each published proposed models for expected loss accounting and the two boards have since been working to align these proposals. A return to a system of expected loss provisioning in due course can be expected to play its part in contributing to a less pro-cyclical financial system.

Liquidity tools

Core Funding Ratio

The Core Funding Ratio is a tool that can help promote greater financial system resilience by requiring banks to fund credit using more stable sources than they might choose in the absence of the requirement. This discipline is particularly desirable during periods of rapid credit growth, when recourse to relatively cheap short-term wholesale funding rather than more stable longer term funding is more likely.

As a tool to actively lean against excessive credit growth, our simulations suggest that the Core Funding Ratio could, in some circumstances, play a useful supplementary stabilising role by requiring banks to always maintain a proportion of core funding which is typically more expensive than shorter-term wholesale funding. Alternatively, the Core Funding Ratio could be used as a counter-cyclical policy tool. Although the Core Funding Ratio could be a less effective anchor on credit growth during a global boom (when funding spreads become compressed), it would still be effective in its primary role of ensuring that banks resort to more stable funding sources.

Capital-based tools

Counter-Cyclical Capital Buffers

A Counter-Cyclical Capital Buffer is a further potential tool for building resilience in the face of excessive credit growth, which could be very beneficial during the subsequent downswing. It has also been suggested that these buffers might help to dampen the credit cycle directly. However, our calculations suggest it would have only a small dampening effect on the upswing of the credit cycle through its effect on the cost of funds (unless one makes extreme assumptions about the size of the counter cyclical buffer or the market cost of capital).

Sectoral Risk-Weight Adjustments

Sectoral risk weights could be adjusted to boost capital requirements for lending to a particular sector, over and above that calculated under the existing Basel 2 framework. While sectoral capital buffers would offer scope to more closely target those sectors subject to rapid credit growth, we have found in simulations that the use of such buffers is likely to have only a modest effect on the pricing of credit for the affected sectors, unless dramatic adjustments are imposed. In principle, sectoral risk weights, generated by Basel II through-the-cycle risk models, should already reflect the risks of lending to the sector, including the risk of a cyclical downturn. Accordingly, we must, in the first instance, focus carefully on the integrity of the risk models used to support Basel 2, before contemplating additional overlays. In recent years, we have sought improvements to the banks’ Basel II risk models in New Zealand in key areas such as housing and agriculture, when it has become clear that risk assessments have been overly optimistic.

Moral Suasion

The potency of the tools we have considered as instruments to affect the credit cycle could be enhanced by a ‘moral suasion’ effect, in addition to any direct impact via the cost of funds or credit constraints. This might mean that our simulations and calculations understate the effectiveness of the various tools to influence the credit cycle. The deployment of any tool would send an important signal to financial institutions, investors, rating agencies and the general public about the central bank’s unease about rapid credit growth, and/or the risks accumulating in the financial system. It could thus help to reinforce a change in lending and borrowing behaviour. That said, we are naturally cautious about the strength of the moral suasion effect, particularly in the context of a credit boom (where risk aversion may be low), and if the instruments themselves were not widely considered by institutions to have ‘bite’.

 

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.

26 Comments

Well done RBNZ. Keep thinking. Where there's a will there's a way.

Cheers,

Les.

www.mea.org.nz

Up
0

Talk is cheap

The lack of action is expensive

"Get on with it AB"

Boom, Boom

Up
0

Loan to Value restrictions???....that's the best thing I 've heard come out of Bollard for god knows how long.

Such restricitons along with more liberal planning have ensured more stable housing markets in places like texas 

Up
0

In which cheek resideth the tongue Matt?

Or did you really swallow the Urban Cowboy's guff?

Up
0

This is just BS. The thought that Bollard would act to throttle a property bubble is laughable...he has just cut the ocr to pork the bloody bubble which still sees housing as seriously unaffordable...anyone seen him apply a single regulation that really honestly acts to strangle the madness...NO. The cfr is a joke reg and results in cheaper dosh at the cost of deposit security...and so the banks dived back into lending to anything that walks in the door...loans are back to 95% I am told.

Up
0

Even with interest rates at historic lows there are no queue forming outside the Banks to take away their wheelbarrows of "cheap" loot.

People it appears to have finally learnt the lessons of the past that you can't use your home as an ATM and are either saving more or retiring debt (after meeting higher living costs).

I understand from mortgage brokers that some banks are lending up to 95% but the creteria is very high (and so it should be) and very little is being written.

Wolly,

If you think the CFR is a joke then tell that to the Banks who are very compeditive over deposits.

Why do you believe the CFF is a joke when it has effectively cut off the supply of cheap wholesale offshore money which drove the credit boom.

I would have thought that anything which has significantly stopped the high growth in credit over last few years would have some support from you?

 

 

 

 

Up
0

This is laughhable...all tools that where removed in the late 80s to mid 90s, that were previously put in place for just this reason.

And the dates back to the origins of Banking in Venice...Even Shakespeare refers to them in  Merchant of Venice.

Bottom line it comes down to bank deposit to loan ratios of around a 1/3  that have been the essence of stable banking for centuries.....AND  good business and personal practices of owning at least  1/3 of what one posses

Once upon a time banks and law required at least 20% deposit on high value items, houses cars, boats etc. The idea being that it doesnt take long to reach 1/3 as inflation and/or principal payments on the loan reach the min secure level of 1/3.

So Bollard has to use modeling, high end analysis, High salary economists and tax payer money to come to this conclusion when my grandfather drummed it into his children decades ago....Hell I have been saying this for yrs and in posts here...that was what caused the bubble in the 1st place.

Up
0

Steptoe: - "Hell, I have been saying this for years, and in posts here".

And the pity is, you will have to keep on saying it. The design of the Interest.co.nz web-site is such that any contribution posted here "virtually" disappears within two days. The search function is "virtually" useless. The site operates like "punxsutawney phil" in groundhog day. It is almost impossible to do back-research on opinions expressed when the topic has previously come up. There are only about 5 basic topics, and they cycle around, and many of the posts repeat what was previously said. The topic rarely progresses. You would see It for real if a link was provided at the top of the home page each day linking back to "this day one year ago at interest.co.nz", or one month ago.

Up
0

Also some Banks from the early 1990 were lending over 80% (up to 90%) such as Countrywide and United (and some of the trading banks) but most had mortgage indemnity insurance which underwrote the top end of the exposure so they didn't carry this risk on their balance sheet.

 

As such this high LVR is not something that can be soley directed to Allan Bollard's watch.

Up
0

Yes Banks lent to 66% or 75% but in behind them on second and third mortgages  were Building Societies, Credit Unions, Solicitors Nominee Companies, finance companies etc so the property owner didn't neccessary have 33% or 25% equity.

While the debt to the bank was only 66% or 75% the toal debt against the property was alot higher (although I do concede these subsequent advances were usually over a short term than first mortgage).

Effectively the Banks have taken out the need for these subsequent charges.

From where I sit almost all second mortgages on properties are to protect parents or family trust who have gifted or advanced funds as part or all of the deposit.

Up
0

Sounds interesting Steptoe. Will have to dig out the Merchant of Venice...

Up
0

Wow, just the fact he is talking about these measures makes me optimistic that the dark decades of Brash and friends 'hands off the market' fiasco could be coming to an end.

Up
0

"The Prime Minister also indicated that the Government may scrap the Don Brash-led 2025 Taskforce, saying it probably is not worth spending any more money on."

Up
0

the CFR is effective enough and the only tool needed. the issue is on the other side. banks will only invest in bricks and mortar as they need bugger all capital. the economy is so skewed that with inflation we are going backwards. AB should increase the risk weightings on property as opposed to productive assets. lets get new zealand  moving. he could do it now. why won't he? i'll tell you why because one wrong move and our housing market will collapse like a house of cards - AB, English, Key, and anyone in the know in the finance sector know this only too well.

 

 

Up
0

Yep, it's a rotten house of dirty cards...but the cfr is not what it seems Kaneo2....it's a little bit of BS wrapped in spin....all it has achieved is to give big banks access to cheaper money on longer terms at the cost of depositors risk here...that is what covered bonds are all about...bullshit RBNZ policy sold as a measure to protect the economy from bank failure...but in reality a plan to increase the slosh of cheaper credit and to achieve the same porking of confidence as the ocr game that Bollard is playing.

The IMF and liar agencies are waking up to that trickery and that is why Bollard was warned by them as was English, that the overall debt position would be the factor bringing a ratings downgrade on NZ and higher rates.

Longer term loans bought by the banks and then multiplied tenfold to provide mortgage credit for idiots....the aim has been to protect the bubbles to look after the banks.....and bugger the peasants....This trickery is best carried out while spouting blather about the need to encourage investment into productive export earning areas blah blah blah. Total fiction

Up
0

Wolly,

How much of total bank funding is via Covered Bonds, bugger all as only a few banks have placements at this point. I would suggest no more than 5% and that would be on the high side.

Also the one of the  purposes of the CFR is to ensure banks don't get exposed with short term funding and get a liquidity crisis when these facilities are not rolled, which is what was happening to North Rock (I understand some institutions were renewing their facilities with North Rock on a day to day basis until it fell over).

Also Economics 101 is that long term funding is always higher than short term so the CFR actually forces Banks into more expensive funds (except the scraps in coverd bonds at present).

 

May I suggest a lot of your blogs, to use your words are: 

"it's a little bit of BS wrapped in spin"

Up
0

You should have carried on with your schooling money man...the cfr was a deal with the banks...if they went for longer term debt it would be ok to sell covered bonds ...something not allowed in aus...for a reason!...Now watch closely as they force Bolly to do a deal over the OBR plan....it will amount to yet more cheap credit one way or the other.

The covered bond deal allows 10% and you can count on the banks using every bit of that...the point you fail to grasp is the banks are desperate to sell mortgage debt and keep the bubbles intact.

 

Up
0

the point you fail to grasp is the banks are desperate to sell mortgage debt and keep the bubbles intact. 

I dont grasp it as it is simply incorrect.

If the Banks are desperate to sell debt then why don't they approval every deal that passes their eyes because they dont.

While of the face of it they are saying they will go to 95% its bloody hard to get their Credit Boys to approve one and so it should be hard.   

Go and talk to a mortgage broker and they will confirm that. Be quick as they are existing the industry due to lack clients looking for cheap loot.

Why are they not back to doing low doc loans or security lends??????

Where are the mortgage wars of the late 2000"s?????

Why are Farmers and business owners saying its more difficult for some time to get access to credit???????

Have a look at margins of late as you will see they are up so they can have less debt with higher profit. Kinda shots your arguement in the foot.

What gives you such an insight to the Banks? Do you work for one as you seem to think you know every move they make. If you have a mole in one I suggest you dump them quick as they are not the best source of infomation.

Wolly I seriously suggest you actually look at what is going on out there than some personal crusade against the RBNZ and AB.

'PS WOLLY don't patronise me over my schooling. I have learnt plenty while I was at it and since I have left. 

 

 

Up
0

I read Wolly in the vein of a Devil's Advocate. Have a go MM, and see what you think.

Up
0

MM higher LVR = more capital = less profit for bank and sharehiolders. Coupled with downward revision of values on mortgage securities = more capital. Banks will therefore lend on high LVR where terms are reduced or interest rates are higher to reflect > capital requirement. It has nothing to do with higher earnings for farmers? Not sure where this came from. The mortgage wars were a function of rising asset prices - that's it. Now that house price uncertainty exists banks have reigned in credit supply. The rbnz is doing everything in its power to unsettle the market  to depress demand and hopefully price. The securities commission / rbnz did much the same thing with the finance sector. Unsettle the market, drive down demand and therefore price. (I think the outcome was fully expected, but that's another matter for discussion) . Also with the IMF and Basel III the banks need to manage capital carefully.  They know that RB's around the world are nervous. They are demanding higher capital. The only way this can be done is withdraw dividends, recapitalise, or stop lending. Shareholders don't like 1, or 2 for obvious reasons. 3 is the best and least painful approach for the CEO. However, eventually profit with fall, and ROE will suffer...so its back to lending again. The question is when and how?

Up
0

Yes, lets get the idiots like Bollard and all the other  muppets at the RBNZ who created this mess in the first place (by following the other US muppets at the US FED) to come up with some solutions? Good one!

That's like asking a rapist to come up with the idea of wearing a condom! 

Up
0

Be interest to know Justice exactly what ou would do.

Bit more that generalisations than you mate Wolly who never answers any challange set down to him.

Up
0

My god man, learn to spell. I'm sure you'd be very interested to know what I would do wouldn't you because your one of clueless suckers who bought into the global ponzi scheme.

I’ve made my 'specific' views very clear not only here but elsewhere for years now MM. The simple fact is I was right back in 2003,2006 and the RBNZ was wrong, are still wrong, and will never admit it.

As for "challenges" you might want to pass those thoughts on to the RBNZ. I have absolutely nothing to prove to the likes of you and nor does Wolly I'd say. If you really knew anything about modern day economics you would asking for Bollard's head on a platter. Or Bernanke's or Greenspans, or Geithners, or Summers or Paulson's..................but alas, you'd rather be here pretending to know something a decade too late just like all the rest.

Up
0

As usual wheel out all the froth but as per all of your blogs simply no substance.

I wasn't asking why or how we got here but what you would now we are here.

You might be right as to how we got here but that does mean every one else has bought into the ponzi scheme.

Are you suggesting that in 1985 when I bought my first home at every young age I should not have borrowed for it? Are you saying you have never borrowed a dollar in your life?

Also I think you need to learn, oh smart one, to spell its good man, not god man.

Time will tell whether you are right or not (but suggest you will always be right in your eyes)

 

Up
0

Nice to see the RBNZ catching up with the rest of us. 

Turkey of course have been imposing higher reserve asset requirements to control credit for a while now. It's been in a different environment to NZ but it shows how easy it is to do.

The ability to control the amount of bank credit being issued is available and easy to implement. It has been part of our policy proposals for sometime now.

 

Up
0

134.4 billion euros worth of covered bonds sold so far this year - http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=adm9kHtvXzC0

Up
0