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

RBNZ's OBR policy signals decreasing prospect of taxpayer funded bailout of NZ bank in a crisis, S&P says

Personal Finance
RBNZ's OBR policy signals decreasing prospect of taxpayer funded bailout of NZ bank in a crisis, S&P says
<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</a>

The Reserve Bank's Open Bank Resolution (OBR) policy supports the stability of the banking system, and incentivises bank management and shareholders to prevent a bank from getting into a crisis, Standard& Poor's says.

In a report on the OBR policy the credit rating agency also says the apparent weakening of intent by the Government to use taxpayer money to bail out a bank in crisis has no impact on its bank ratings.

Introduced last year, OBR is a tool the Government could use - if a bank failed - as an alternative to a liquidation or taxpayer funded bailout that would keep a bank open for business.

All locally incorporated banks holding retail deposits worth more than $1 billion must be "pre -positioned" for OBR. This means they must have systems and plans in place for a statutory manager to take over the bank and implement the OBR process within a day of a crisis event.

In this scenario customer access channels would be closed and a portion of customer funds frozen. All of cheque, savings and other transactional accounts, plus term deposits, would potentially face haircuts. The idea is access channels would then be reopened for business no later than 9am the next business day, which the Reserve Bank says will allow customers to access the available, or "good" portion, of their funds.

(See our story on how the OBR policy would work if implemented here. Also see how New Zealand is the only OECD country without an explicit deposit insurance, or guarantee, scheme here).

S&P says the freezing of customer accounts would trigger an issuer credit rating default under its rating definitions and rating criteria.

"OBR provides the New Zealand government with the ability to ensure that bank shareholders and creditors carry losses in a crisis. It is a structure that should help minimise disruption to the payment system if a bank fails, and potentially minimises the impact of a bank failure on the economy," S&P says.

"We believe that New Zealand's implementation of OBR supports the stability of the country's banking system, in that it creates strong incentives for banks' management and their shareholders to prevent a bank from getting into a crisis in the first place, and to resolve an emerging crisis before government intervention is required. This said, the implementation of OBR itself did not result in any changes of bank ratings in New Zealand."

S&P goes on to say it doesn't expect adoption of the OBR policy to impact any of its New Zealand bank ratings in the next two years. However, there's a "growing prospect" of S&P revising its assessment of the New Zealand government's supportiveness toward the banking sector to "support uncertain" from the current "supportive."  S&P also says, however, the big four Australian owned banks and Kiwibank all get greater "rating uplift" from the support of their respective parents than would hypothetically be the case from government support, with no New Zealand bank ratings currently benefiting from government support.

Last resort & increased risk of a flight to quality

The credit rating agency suggests OBR would only be used virtually as a last resort.

"We believe the New Zealand regulator would use almost all other measures at its disposal, such as appointment of a statutory manager, seeking additional capital support from shareholders, allowing hybrid capital instruments to convert to capital, instituting management changes, and so on, well ahead of triggering the OBR process," S&P says.

"In this context we note that a bank appointing a statutory manager by itself would not be expected to lead to a bank being placed in OBR under all conditions. Rather, OBR would be exercised only in the event of a bank's failure."

S&P also suggests the threat of a bank being placed in OBR, whereby creditor obligations are frozen and losses could be enforced, could increase the risk of a flight to quality at a bank that came under stress ahead of it formerly being placed in OBR, adding to system instability.

New Zealand, meanwhile, is well ahead of many other countries when it comes to putting in place a mechanism to resolve a banking crisis without a government funded bailout, according to S&P.

"Growing global sentiment to limit the expectation of taxpayers bailing out banks in crisis supports our opinion that there is a moderating likelihood of timely government support in countries where some form of powers are being created or have been created to enforce creditors to absorb losses by way of haircuts, delayed payments, or conversion to equity. The New Zealand government is showing strong signs it shares this sentiment."

See credit ratings explained here.

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.

21 Comments

As a depositor in a bank, I dont see myself as an investor. If I wanted to invest  I'd buy shares. I want a safe place to keep my money.

The ‘Troika’ of creditors have agreed the final deposit levy on Cypriot accounts will be 47.5 percent for shareholders, bondholders, and depositors with more than 100,000 euro in the two largest banks.

The levies placed on large depositors will be used as equity to recapitalize the bank, a decision reached in March as part of the bailout package. 

http://rt.com/business/cyprus-crisis-bailout-deposit-631/

Up
0

You may not see yourself as an 'investor' but that is the point; you are one.

 

Every time you place assets with someone else (public or private) you are taking risk. Nothing is risk-free and we have gotten into too much trouble thinking there are such options.

 

The whole finco problem was that many people were blind to that. They wanted high returns, for no risk, and no work. The only person you are fooling if you think that is available is yourself. Banks are just bigger versions. You will never achieve risk-free safety with them.

 

The taxpayer (as the Government) has every right to to limit their risks as well - certainly from being gamed by people who want to claim they 'thought there was no risk'.

 

All investing requires work. All investing carries risk.

Up
0

Thanks for the sympathy David but after adjusting for inflation my returns are not great. If you want me to take the risk then let the market set the rate.

 

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_do_banks_want_our_deposits_hint…

Up
0

Its not sympathy or at least a one way street.  I mean as tax payers what about my children and I?  just why should I and they guarantee the selected savings of others with no justification for it making them risk free? (and not others?)

Do you not think such an action makes ppl lazy and indifferent to rsk?  they know they cannto lose, someone else is going to cough up.

Sorry but I do not see that as fair.

regards

 

 

Up
0

Let those same taxpayers pay risk related interest rate costs to borrow such risk laden sources of funding that can passed back to the so-called investors - at current collective debt to disposal income levels 15% p a returns to term bank depositors plus a term premuim would still not cut in terms of default risk adjusted return demand.

 

Keep the taxpayer funded and yet seemingly bank/politician captured mandarins at the RBNZ out of the rate setting function. OCR should be set by the market and that means by those who are collectively the source of the funding.

Up
0

Stephen Hulme - I'm in total agreement.

Up
0

Let the RB not the trading banks determine the quantity of money in the economy but leave rates to the market

Up
0

Actually, I think you should be seeing your current bank deposit returns positively. Today Westpac is offering 4.5% for one year. After tax at the top rate that yields 3.15%. Inflation is only 1.0%, so in New Zealand you are getting 2.15% after inflation. That is way, way, way better that the poor sods with US term deposits, or Japanese, or euro, etc. etc.

 

(For a less stressful life, I recommend you stop reading those US doomster blogs ... If you must read them, don't take them so seriously. Zerohedge et al are only for depressives. )

 

But of course for much better after-tax returns than NZ bank deposits you are going to have to take on more risk. Your call on that. There is a lot to choose from - including farming.  ;-)  Those beef prices look good to me, lamb and logs are improving fast too. Choices and risk.

Up
0

I get 4.80% for the same term and still think it hardly reflects the risks that the banks take with the capital in terms of leveraging up serial speculators - let's face it 50% down is the  minimum Fed rule for margin stock investors - it drops to 10% for taxpayer guaranteed US Treasuries with 5% maintenance margins. 

Up
0

Lambs at $100 are not much better than year 2000 when I got $140 for my late lambs. Beef is getting interesting. Prime cuts are up %28 but grinding beef is up %150due to lack of cow kill in the States as they up milk production.

Thats why Costco visited NZ recently, a shortage of grinding beef in the States, affecting the likes of Burger King and why new Burger outlets like Five Guys are buying Aussie and NZ beef the demand for NZ grinding beef must be huge. (Smashburger are %100 angus beef)

. If a prime steer is %60 mince and its up %147 but prime cuts are up only %28, it doesn't take a genius to see what happens once the dairy markets correct and lead to an increased cow kill, also tells us what sort of production increases are in the dairy pipeline.

 Thats a good chunk of free info on Beef markets.

 

http://www.attenbabler.com/u-s-dairy-cow-slaughter-update-aug-14/

Up
0

The point is David that there is no electronic equivalent of a safe deposit box. I would pay a small fee, and accept no interest for a 100% guarantee of my savings. True that those on term deposits earning interest also have to accept risk like any other interest or income earning "investment"

Up
0

Rubbish. Implementation of OBR on the first NZ bank to get in trouble will cause panic and runs on all other NZ banks. Most Kiwis have no clue as to what the OBR means and at the first sniff of its use, realisation will finally hit home causing an exodus from the banking system. There is a reason that no other OECD nation has anything similar in place.........

Up
0

I talked to an Aussie banker  a few years back who advised me to move deposits to Australia. His reasoning was that the Aussie government would always bail out the 4 pillars but as for their NZ sudsiduaries, he wasn't hopeful. Didn't help that he was confident of an, 'event'.

 The BNZ with %140 Loan to Deposit Ratio scares the living daylights out of me and is a good example of the RBNZ failing in its job.

 

Up
0

Precisely. Tens of thousands of Kiwis have Aussie bank accounts which remain guaranteed by the Australian government. At the first whiff of OBR money will flow like water out of ALL of our banks into the Australian government guaranteed banks. The idiotic thing about this is back in 2008/2009 when the NZ government was forced to bring in a bank guarantee English went on record as stating that one of the primary drivers was the existing Aussie guarantee which would cause a money exodus from unprotected NZ banks. Well if he was right then he sure as hell is right now!

Pundits can fulminate as much as they want about reducing moral hazard etc. The simple fact of the matter is that when the next mega crisis emerges unless some form of government back stop is in place systemic panic will infect the NZ banking system. Our regulators can smile benevolently and say 'jolly well done we have forestalled moral hazard at Bank X' - meanwhile the rest of the banking system collapses under a series of runs.

Any hint of OBR enactment and I am out of the NZ banking system like greased lightning - and there will be thousands and thousands right behind me.

Up
0

I don't think anyone at the RBNZ has thought about this, but it's the outcome that I would foresee.

Up
0

According to Rod Oram the OBR is a massive disaster waiting to happen.

After reading his article in the SST i agree.

There are 110 countries that safeguard their bank depositors as opposed to only 12 in 1974.

This OBR is frightening because we all know that a crisis will come sooner or later and it will be joe public who will be poorer for it.

 

Up
0

Rod Oram points out the absurdity of expecting even financial "professionals" to establish the risk profile of their bank. Ratings Agencies anyone? How can joe public be expected to spend hours/days analysing the bank's financial position, even assuming it's honest? How many here have that ability? Would like to hear how Bill English does it! Perhaps interest.co.nz could ask him

Up
0

In Australia all depositors are covered up to $250,000 per person per institution with more than 100 institutions to choose from and to spread deposits across.  see http://www.apra.gov.au/adi/Pages/adilist.aspx

The US and Canada are similar as are most other countries.

It is extraordinary that the moral hazard of bank failure in NZ has been so increased by the RBNZ in implementing the OBR scheme.

It provides an 'out' for the Australian banks in particular  - it will be the NZ depositor who covers for their failures, whether the failures are in NZ or Australian management of the banks.

It would be far better for the RBNZ to implement a pro-active protection for NZ depositors.

Currently there are billions in profits - transferred to Australia each year.  None of this will be available should a bank fail and OBR be invoked.

A simple scheme (even within RBNZ and Treasury capability to manage) would be to require each NZ bank to deposit 10% of each year's profits with the NZ government (Treasury bonds in their names) for a period of five years.  The money is still 'theirs' but should their bank fail the money could be used to prevent NZ depositors from paying for their mistakes. 

There would be no direct cost to the banks - and they would retain their 'profits' and the interest earned on the part deposited with the NZ government.

If there is any haircut due to bank failure, it would be out of the individual bank's prior profits - not out of the NZ taxpayer or the NZ depositors.

 

 

 

Up
0

You could argue that there is an incentive for the Aussie banks to repatriate as much money as they possibly can.

Up
0

And they are in the process of abolishing uncollateralised/ unsecured parent lending to the NZ entities. The case for market interest rates must prevail. Bank depositors can no longer subsidise funding for leveraged residential house purchases. 

 

And since the foreign wholesale funding margin above domestic retail deposits, currently around 32 -37%, is outside the OBR claw back/haircut arrangement due to cross currency basis swap exemptions, it is just the lonely Kiwi lender carrying the bag for all those perenially repatriated Aussie bank profits.

Up
0

I seem to remember about 6-12 months back reading here that John key had managed to secure good ratings for our banks from one ratings agency on the basis of his assurances to them that OBR wouldn't be used.  It seemed strange to me at the time. Not sure if I've got the details right. Does anyone remember anything along those lines?

Up
0