Growth in debt, but barely at all in New Zealand

I’m a bit tied up for the next couple of days, and so posting might be light and insubstantial  My share in the stewardship of a financial entity that has now operated for decades without appropriate authorisations and approvals is somewhat time-consuming (thank goodness we have a Reserve Bank to deal with cases where major commercial banks don’t follow the rules).

But for today, I’m just going to leave you with a simple chart. presumably constructed by Moody’s from BIS data, that I found in a newsletter last night.  It shows the change in the ratio of business and household debt to GDP between 2007 (just prior to the recession and financial crisis) and 2017 for 41 advanced and emerging countries.

household and corporate debt

In some quarters you hear a lot about high and rising debt in New Zealand.  I’ve pointed out previously that the “rising” bit is mostly wrong –  and that levels comparison across countries are difficult to do meaningfully, because of issues such as the tax treatment of debt.  Despite the surge in house prices in the last few years, household debt as a share of GDP isn’t much higher now than it was in 2007.

What this chart highlights is that New Zealand is towards the end of the spectrum with the least increases in private debt as a share of GDP.   Of these 41 countries, only five advanced economies and two emerging ones had less of an increase (more of a fall) than New Zealand.

And here is a slightly more detailed chart on the specific New Zealand data, showing credit for each of the three sectors the Reserve Bank reports, as a share of GDP.

credit

In the years leading up to 2007 we did, indeed, see a big increase in private sector indebtedness (as a share of GDP), across households, farms, and non-farm business.  In the crisis-prediction literature it was a classic warning sign –  taking on lots of new loans very quickly is often associated with a serious deterioration in credit standards.    But it didn’t come to anything much, at least outside the (small) finance company sector.

Sure, we had a serious recession in 2008/09 –  as most other countries did (it was largely a global phenomenon, with roots in the US in particular) –  but our core financial sector came through the recession unscathed.  Banks weren’t perfect by any means (they are run by humans in a world of imperfect information so that is hardly surprising) and of course there was some increase in loan losses and provisions.  But nothing to threaten the soundness of any major institution or the system as a whole.

There probably are some serious questions to ask about what has gone on, and what might yet happen, in some of the countries in the chart that have had big recent increases in debt to GDP ratios –   China most notably –  but as was the case pre-2007, a big increase in debt is unlikely to be any sort of safe predictor of future financial sector problems.

And whatever the situation abroad, New Zealand at present doesn’t look like one of those places where anyone should be concerned about financial system risks.  Yes, our house prices are cruelly high, but the structural policy failings that took them there don’t show any sign of being sustainably fixed.  And there just hasn’t been much new debt taken out for other purposes.

All this is, of course, backed up by successive waves of stress tests undertaken by the Reserve Bank.   Which does leave you wondering why we now have such a regulatorily-distorted and suppressed market in housing credit.

 

More questions than answers

When a Reserve Bank press release turned up yesterday afternoon, announcing that the Reserve Bank had temporarily increased the minimum capital requirements for Westpac’s New Zealand subsidiary, after breaches had been discovered in Westpac’s compliance with its conditions of registration, my initial reaction was a slightly flippant one.  It must, I thought, be nice for the Reserve Bank to be able to impose penalties when banks don’t do as they should, but it is a shame that there is no effective penalty operating in reverse.   When the Reserve Bank misses its inflation target, imposes new controls with threadbare justification, flouts the principles of the Official Information Act, allows OCR decisions to leak, or attempts to silence a leading critic what happens?  Well, nothing really.

But as I reflected on the Reserve Bank’s statement and the Westpac New Zealand, both reproduced here, I became increasingly uneasy.

This is what we know from the Reserve Bank

Westpac New Zealand Limited (Westpac) has had its minimum regulatory capital requirements increased after it failed to comply with regulatory obligations relating to its status as an internal models bank.

Internal models banks are accredited by the Reserve Bank to use approved risk models to calculate how much regulatory capital they need to hold. Westpac used a number of models that had not been approved by the Reserve Bank, and materially failed to meet requirements around model governance, processes and documentation.

The Reserve Bank required Westpac to commission an independent report into its compliance with internal models regulatory requirements. The report found that Westpac:
·currently operates 17 (out of 35) unapproved capital models;
·has used 21 (out of 32) additional unapproved capital models since it was accredited as an internal models bank in 2008; and
·failed to put in place the systems and controls an internal models bank is required to have under its conditions of registration.

The Reserve Bank has decided that Westpac’s conditions of registration should be amended to increase its minimum capital levels until the shortcomings and
non-compliance identified in the independent report have been remedied.  …..

In addition, the Reserve Bank has accepted an undertaking by Westpac to maintain its total capital ratio above 15.1 percent until all existing issues have been resolved.  The Reserve Bank has given Westpac 18 months to satisfy the Reserve Bank that it has sufficiently addressed those issues or it risks losing accreditation to operate as an internal models bank.

There is nothing additional in the Westpac statement, but they don’t appear to dispute either the Reserve Bank’s findings or its response.

There are a few things to clear away.  First, the temporary increase in the minimum capital requirements for Westpac New Zealand does not constitute a financial penalty at all.    Arguably that might be true even if it increased the actual amount of capital Westpac had to hold (Modigliani-Miller and all that), but this measure does not do that.    The Reserve Bank statement tells us that as 30 September, Westpac’s total capital ratio was 16.1 per cent.

That doesn’t mean it is no penalty at all.   I’m sure there has been a great deal of very uncomfortable anguishing in recent months both among Westpac New Zealand directors and senior management, and at head office (and the main board) in Sydney.  APRA is likely to have taken a very dim view of this sort of mismanagement by an Australian bank’s subsidiary.  And, of course, a lot of scarce staff time is now going to have be devoted to sorting these issues out over the next 18 months.  That resource has an opportunity cost –  other things those people could have been used for, which might have boosted the bank’s earnings.

But what I found more striking was how little either the Reserve Bank or Westpac statements said about breaches of conditions of registration which appear to go to the heart of our system of prudential supervision.

There is, for example, nothing at all in the Westpac statement about how these errors happened (use of numerous unathorised models, dating back to 2008), and not much contrition either.  The closest they come is this

WNZL is disappointed not to have met the RBNZ’s requirements in this area.

And our system of banking supervision is supposed to, at least in principle and in law, rely very heavily on attestations from each individual director that the bank they are directors of is fully in compliance with the conditions of registration (which includes provisions around calculation of minimum capital requirements and associated models).  But there is no apology from the directors, and no sign that any director has lost his or her job.   Potential heavy civil and criminal penalties –  including potential imprisonment –  are supposed to sufficiently focus the attention of directors that depositors and other creditors can rely on the information banks publish.  Westpac’s clearly haven’t been able to rely on their disclosure statements for almost a decade.  And yet there is no specific mention of the directors in the Reserve Bank’s statement either.

There is also nothing in either statement (Reserve Bank or Westpac) about the quantitative significance of the errors.   The Reserve Bank tells us that they accept that Westpac did not deliberately set out to reduce its regulatory capital, but intent and effect are two different things.    These problems appear to have been known about for more than a year –  Westpac tells us they first reported them in their September 2016 Disclosure Statement.  But was the effect, over the years since 2008, to reduce the amount of capital Westpac had to hold relative to what it would have been if they’d been using Reserve Bank approved models?  Or does no one –  at the Reserve Bank or Westpac –  yet know?   When the issues are sorted out will Westpac New Zealand be required to restate its capital ratios for the whole period since 2008?

The Reserve Bank’s own processes also seem lax at best.    And this comes closer to home for me, since I sat for a long time on the Bank’s internal Financial System Oversight committee.  The precise mandate of that committee was never fully clear –  in a sense, it was to provide advice on whatever issues the Governor wanted advice on –  and we didn’t typically do individual bank issues at this level of detail.  But that Committee provided advice to the then Governor to go forward with Basle II and, in particular (back in 2008), to allow the big banks to use internal-models based approaches to calculating regulatory capital requirements.    I don’t recall if anyone ever asked how we –  the Reserve Bank –  could be confident, on an ongoing basis, that an internal-models bank was actually using approved models.  But had anyone done so, I’m pretty sure the answer would have been along the lines of “director attestations” and the stiff potential civil and criminal penalties directors could face for what are, after all, strict liability offences (directors don’t have to be shown to have intended to mislead –  it is enough that there statements were subsequently found to be false.)

For a long time the concern was that any questions we (the Bank) asked of bank management would weaken the incentive on directors to get things right –  they might, after all, claim they had relied on us.   But that mentality had been changing in the last decade –  eg the Reserve Bank started collecting private information that creditors don’t have access to.     But where were the questions around Westpac’s models?  After all, it wasn’t a single model where someone overloooked getting Reserve Bank sign-off, but roughly half of all the models, stretching back years.

If there is nothing in the Reserve Bank statement about steps the Bank may have taken to improve its own monitoring and recordkeeping (given that they had to grant approval, how did they not know that so many models were being used and had had no approval?), there is also nothing about any steps they may have taken to assure themselves that there are not similar problems in any of the other IRB banks.   Have they even asked the question?  Surely, one would think, but mightn’t we expect to be told?

As I noted, there was no mention of the directors in the Reserve Bank statement.  But did the Reserve Bank consider taking prosecutions against Westpac’s directors, who signed false disclosure statements over the years from 2008 to 2016?  If not, why not?  If the directors believed (as presumably they did) that the statements they were signed were correct, did they have reasonable grounds for that belief?  What procedures or inquiries had they instituted over eight years that (a) they had confidence in, and (b) still proved wrong?  The Reserve Bank insists on independent directors: those on the Westpac NZ board look quite impressive, but what were they doing all those years?

If the Reserve Bank has lost confidence in a system of rather condign punishment of directors, perhaps it should tell us so, and seek legislative changes.  But if it really still believes that director attestations have a central role in the framework, surely this is as good an episode, and time, to make an example of someone as there is ever likely to be?  After all, it was about a core aspect of the regulatory framework (capital requirements), and comes at times when there are no jitters around the health of the financial system.  If there is no penalty for directors, no doubt directors of other banks will take note.

And then there is the question of the other (apparent) breaches of the conditions of registration. I don’t make a habit of reading Disclosure Statements (and don’t bank with Westpac anyway –  although, come to think of it, the Reserve Bank Superannuation scheme, that the “acting Governor” is a trustee of, does).  But I had a quick look at the latest Westpac statement.  On page 2, there is half page of disclosures of things Westpac NZ is not compliant with.  Several appear to be dealt with by yesterday’s announcement, but another five don’t.   Perhaps they are all pretty small matters –  they look that way to this lay reader – but banks are supposed to be fully compliant.   It is the law.

From the Reserve Bank’s side, the press statement went out in the name of Deputy Governor (and new Head of Financial Stability) Geoff Bascand.  But he has been in the role for less than two months now.  By contrast, “acting Governor” Grant Spencer was head of financial stability from 2007 to 2017, spanning the entire period of the use of internal models, and one of his direct reports, the head of prudential supervision, has also been in his role that entire time.    One would hope that the Reserve Bank’s Board is now asking some pretty serious questions about just what went on, about how the Reserve Bank has handled these issues over the last decade, and about how much confidence New Zealanders can have in an avowedly hands-off system.

Most probably, the empirical significance of this protracted breach of the rules will prove to have been small.  For that small mercy, we should of course be grateful.  But it is also small comfort because the fact that such breaches could go on for so long –  and the statements aren’t even clear how they came to light – leaves one wondering about what other gaps we (or the Reserve Bank, or Westpac or other IRB banks) might not yet know about.  Often enough, such problems only come to light when it is too late.   In many other central banks and regulatory agencies, if they hear about this episiode, there will be tut-tutting along the lines of “well, that is what you get when you don’t have on-site supervision of banks”.  Personally I wouldn’t want to see New Zealand go that way, but my confidence in our approach has taken a blow in the last 24 hours.

The Reserve Bank has a review of capital requirements underway at present.  I hope final decisions are not going to be made before a new Governor is in place.   There is plenty of unease around the use of internal-models for calculating capital requirements –  especially for rather vanilla banks such as those operating here.  Personally, I’d be comfortable moving away from that system, back to a standardised model for calculating capital (which would, among other things, put Kiwibank –  somewhat put upon by the Reserve Bank – and TSB on the same footing as the large banks).  But, for now, the law is the law, and needs to be seen to be enforced.  A breach of this sort, with little serious direct penalty, risks undermining confidence in our system.

And, of course, there is the small matter of openness.  Not every aspect of the Reserve Bank’s dealing with an individual bank can be published, but there are a lot of questions –  including about the Reserve Bank itself –  to which we really should be entitled to more answers than the Bank has yet given us.

I hope some journalists are willing to pursue the matter further.  Questions could be directed to David McLean, the well-regarded Westpac NZ CEO, to the Board members past and present (especially the independents), perhaps to the parent bank in Sydney, and –  of course –  to Grant Spencer and Geoff Bascand –  if not before then at their next (financial stability) press conference, which is now only a couple of weeks away.

 

 

 

The 1987 crash: experience and reflection

The upside of a decent memory and a pretty comprehensive diary is that one is reminded of how many things one misjudged, or at least sees differently now, over the course of decades.  In my case, the stock market crash of 1987 was one of those events.

There were excuses I suppose.  I was young –  just 25 –  and had only just come back from two years at the (central) Bank of Papua New Guinea – a place where I’d learned a great deal about economics, politics, regulation, statistics and so on but where, from memory, there were about five, rarely-traded, public companies.  In late August 1987, I’d taken up the role of Manager, Monetary Policy at the Reserve Bank, working for (current “acting Governor”) Grant Spencer.  The Reserve Bank wasn’t (formally) operationally independent at the time, and my section was responsible for our monetary policy analysis and advice, including that to the then Minister of Finance.    It was a very different world.  The Bank produced macroeconomic forecasts, but they weren’t that important in how policy was run.  We didn’t set an official interest rate, and to the extent we were guided by any financial market indicators, the “yield gap” –  between 90 day bill rates and five year government bond rates –  was the most important indicator.  My diary suggests my team spent a considerable portion of late 1987 working on a paper on the yield gap and the making sense of the slope of the yield curve, for a new Associate Minister who had trained as an economist and was intrigued.

Official doctrine was that it was very hard to interpret the level of interest rates.  It was only three years since we’d liberalised, so didn’t have much sense of an appropriate interest rate in normal circumstances, and these circumstances were anything but normal (hence the focus on the yield gap –  if short-term rates were well above long-term rates then, in a climate where we were trying to drive down inflation, we couldn’t be too far wrong).  Much the same line applied to interpreting the exchange rate.   Both interest rates and the exchange rate were extraordinary volatile.

wholesale int rate 85 to 97

We didn’t really have a good model for forecasting, or making sense of, inflation either.   Again, that wasn’t really surprising.  So much had been liberalised quite quickly and a lot of economic relationships that had once held up no longer did.   Our basic approach was that inflation was a monetary phenomenon, but it wasn’t as if the monetary or credit aggregates could then give us much useful guidance either.

The focus was on bringing inflation down.  It was the one thing we knew the Reserve Bank could do, especially once the exchange rate had been floated, and I don’t suppose there was anyone who opposed that broad goal.   There wasn’t a very specific goal, but for some time the talk had been of “low single figure inflation” which was, at least at times, seen as emulating the success of the UK and the US earlier in the 1990s in bringing inflation down.

But inflation itself was all over the place.

CPI inflation 83 to 87

Annual headline inflation was 18.9 per cent in the year to June 1987.  Much of that reflected the introduction of GST in October 1986, but even abstracting from that quarterly inflation was volatile, and disconcertingly high.    There had been a sense that by early 1986 things were coming under control –  hence the sharp fall in interest rates in mid 1986 (see earlier chart) –  but that proved illusory.   Just before I came back to the Bank in August I recall seeing Grant Spencer interviewed on TV after the June quarter 1987 CPI numbers came out: quarterly inflation of 3.3 per cent (I think the Bank had been expecting something nearer 2 per cent) left the Chief Economist “flabbergasted”.   Low single figure inflation seemed a long way away, as the commercial construction boom, and the debt-fuelled sharemarket boom and associated strength in consumption raged on.    The (volatile) exchange rate offered some solace –  at the time, the pass-through from the exchange rate into domestic prices was still quite strong (we assumed something like a 46 per cent pass through) –  although I’m sure we all remembered that after the devaluation of 1984, a key policy priority had been cementing-in a  much lower real exchange rate.  (As a young graduate analyst, I’d been the minute-taker in various meetings on that theme involving the great and the good of the Reserve Bank and The Treasury).

twi 87

And so in September 1987, the biggest concern in the Economics Department of the Reserve Bank was that we were making little or no progress in getting inflation back down again.  Perhaps we weren’t going back to the 15 per cent inflation we’d often seen before the wage and price freezes of 1982 to 1984, but there didn’t seem much reason for confidence that once the GST effects dropped out we’d settle at much below 10 per cent annual inflation.  That wasn’t good enough for the government –  newly re-elected, and just about to launch the next wave of reforms  –  or for us.

Other parts of the Reserve Bank may have had different perspectives.  We didn’t do much banking regulation or supervision in those days, but a new function was just getting going, and I didn’t have much to do with them.  Our Financial Markets Department was probably a little more focused on the excesses in the markets –  including the big speculative plays on the NZD –  but the Bank wasn’t responsible for equity markets, and we didn’t have a “macro-financial stability” type of analytical function there or in Economics.   At the time we didn’t pay very much close attention to what was going on in other countries, but had we done so, we’d probably have seen a bunch of smallish economies undergoing similar post-liberalisation experiences (Australia and the Nordics), while congratulating ourselves that at least we’d floated our exchange rate (which the Nordics hadn’t).

But our focus in September/October 1987 was on tightening monetary policy if at all possible.  And on 7 October 1987, we’d actually announced a discrete monetary policy tightening (implemented by an increase in the margin above market rates at which we would buy back short-dated government securities from the market).   We’d tried to buttress the case for a tightening by arguing that the strength of the stock market was an indicator of demand and inflation pressures, but an older and (with hindsight) wiser senior manager insisted we remove that line.  My diary records that I thought the tightening was “pretty feeble” and that at a market function immediately after the announcement at least one of the market economists I talked to agreed (Grant Spencer, to his credit, disagreed).    Actual interest rates didn’t rise very much at all –  at least in the way we thought about things then – but by 16 October 90 day bank bill rates were 20.56 per cent.  There was no unease from the Beehive –  my diary for 15 October records of a meeting with Roger Douglas and his associate only “the latter almost gleeful at having closed almost 450 Post Offices”.

In many ways, our stance to this point was quite justifiable.  A key element of the macroeconomic management agenda ever since the 1984 election had been to end New Zealand’s really bad record of inflation.  And that was the Reserve Bank’s job.  Moreover, even if we had properly recognised the ever-growing fragility of the financial system etc, neither we –  nor anyone else –  had any way of knowing when those risks would crystallise.   Persistent strong domestic demand, even if built on foundations of sand, represented a serious threat to any sort of success in lowering inflation to what were, by then, becoming more internationally conventional levels.  So it probably wasn’t wrong to have tightened on 7 October, and may not even have been wrong for people like me to think that more tightening might yet be required.   Annual money and credit growth rates were, after all, still running at around 20 per cent –  indeed, a couple of days after the crash began we got new numbers that I called “presentationally (and factually) very embarrassing when [our chief critics] get hold of it”.  If there was a real squeeze on the tradables sector –  and there was –  the unemployment rate in mid 1987 was stable at around 4.2 per cent (lower than it is today).   At the time we didn’t really believe that seriously high unemployment would, for a time, be required to get inflation down –  I recall an IMF mission chief at the time reproaching us for this view – probably partly because after three years, unemployment hadn’t risen.  But whatever the truth of the matter, 4.2 per cent unemployment, amid a major economic restructuring, wasn’t exactly the 3 million unemployed of Thatcher’s Britain earlier in the decade.

So if there was a criticism to be made –  and I think it is probably fair that one should –  it was that we simply weren’t prepared for what followed.   There may have been people at the Bank –  older and wiser than me – who saw things differently then, and if so all credit to them.  But I was pretty closely involved on the monetary policy side throughout the following five years and I don’t think my blindspots were particularly unusual (I wrote many of the major papers, including the first ever Monetary Policy Statement, which has little or no sense of a post credit-boom bust to it_.  Again, it is possible that our banking supervision people saw things differently, but banking supervision –  such as it was – didn’t impinge on monetary policy or our macroeconomic forecasting and analysis.   We never really worked through what an asset bust and financial crisis meant for economic developments and prospects, and mostly treated them as peripheral issues.

On 20 October itself –  the first day of the crash in New Zealand –  I recorded in my diary “Bank not at all twitchy yet, which is good, and Douglas put on a brave face tonight”.   I saw the risk of economic contractions and real wealth effects, but for some reason seemed to see the risks as mainly those from abroad (commercial property busts overseas associated with potential credit contractions, recessions, falls in commodity prices etc) and thus potentially helpful in our own disinflation efforts.  For some – now unaccountable –  reason I noted that I didn’t see the New Zealand fundamentals as particularly problematic.   As I say, records of the past can make one wince.

A week or so later –  in one of those events I’ve never needed a diary to recall –  Paul Frater and Kel Sanderson, then the leading figures at BERL –  pretty vocal critics of our approach to monetary policy – came in to see Grant Spencer and me.  Sitting in Grant’s office

“among other topics, they gave us their gloomy assessment of the impact of the share price falls –  very pessimistic about comm. property and about the future size of many broking firms and merchant banks”.

They foreshadowed a financial crisis, and a lot of stress on bank balance sheets.  We were pretty dismissive of their concerns.

Within a day or two, concerns were mounting even within the Bank, focused on the fate of some of the investment companies (“Judge, Rada and Renouf”) and those they might drag down with them.   There was, I recorded, no panic over financial institutions themselves, but we’d had internal discussion of a possible liquidity response, agreeing in principle to raise the target level of settlement cash and perhaps cap the level of the discount rate (which normally moved with market rates) –  I think, from context, this hypothetical response was envisaged if interest rates rose (as, say, they did in the 2008 crisis).

A week later we acted.  It was never represented as a monetary policy easing –  although it was –  and so even today there is a mythology abroad (I saw it in a recent Liam Dann article on the crash) that the Reserve Bank did nothing in response.  On the day, 90 day bill rates –  which hadn’t risen since the crash, despite increase risk concerns and limit cuts –  fell 1.5 percentage points on the day.    (By August the following year, 90 day bill rates were down to 14 per cent –  a similar-sized fall to the active cut in policy rates the Reserve Bank implemented in 2008/09.)

My diary entry that day is sufficiently long, and embarrassingly wrong, that I won’t quote from it at any length: suffice to say that I called it a “precipitate panicky move”.  To be sure, the issue in the market at the time wasn’t the interest rate (which hadn’t risen) –  it was blind fear and an often-quite-rational newfound reluctance to lend –  and we had no evidence that inflation or inflation expectations would fall, and the Bank had over the years been too receptive to pressure from banks.  But, such were the genuine fears and rising risk aversion, that the response was only prudent.   Immediate responses can always be revisited once the immediate panic passes and, frankly, there wasn’t much, if any, moral hazard risk in the sort of action we took.   We weren’t lending more to anyone, let alone to bad credits.

But it wasn’t the way I saw it.  A few days later, apparently, I circulated a discussion note “provocatively titled ‘Is it time to lower the cash target’, (ie tighten up again) arguing strongly in the affirmative”.  The same day I recorded that Grant Spencer had deleted a description in a draft Board paper of the 6 November easing as “temporary”, observing to me “nice try”.  My approach wasn’t totally hawkish –  I also toyed with the idea of a cap on our discount rate, in case renewed crisis pressures spilled back into higher interest rates.  As the month went on and interest rates fell further, my arguments (in another “longer and more reasoned note”) starting commanding more sympathy among my colleagues, and some hawkish market economists.    The Deputy Governor even did the courtesy of ringing to discuss it.  But this was one of those times when –  at least with hindsight – the more senior were better judges of the situation than those of us further down the food chain.  In mid-November, I recorded a conversation with Iain Rennie –  then an analyst at Treasury –  in which he told me that the distribution of views was much the same at Treasury.

The (apparent) tensions betwen the financial stability and inflation control perspective must have been very real.  When my latest note was discussed at (the equivalent of) the Monetary Policy Committee, I recorded that there was plenty of agreement with the analysis and none with the recommendation (to reverse some of the easing) – “terrified of the possibility of collapses corporate and financial” , with rumours rife.

Of course, there were plenty of collapses to come, of corporates and fringe financial institutions.   Of the things that were feared, most come true.  In fact, reality was worse, because the crisis eventually engulfed mainstream large institutions on both sides of the Tasman.  Really bad lending –  whether to investment companies, or on a massive commercial propety boom –  eventually does that –  enabling a really big misallocation of real resources, and then eventually being found out.  Most of the waste isn’t in the crisis-aftermath; rather the bad seed is sown –  the waste actually happens – when all feels exuberant and the new investment is being recorded as an addition to GDP.

If I look back on my views during that frantic couple of months after the crash began, I was clearly wrong.  Even if monetary policy wasn’t going to do anything to save Judge, Renouf, the listed goat companies or whatever –  and nor should it –  it was quite clearly, even on the facts available at the time, a shock to the system which meant that lower interest rates were warranted.  Credit demand and associated activity would be weaker.  Interest rate falls would have happened anyway, even without our intervention (that was how the system worked then), but the nudge downwards, and the willingness to accommodate lower interest rates was clearly the right thing to do.

But it is also worth wondering what we might have done if we had correctly understood financial crises, asset busts etc, if we had envisaged several years of little or no growth, and two near-failures of our largest bank.  (That we didn’t, even later, is evident in a major article written by Grant Spencer and one his colleagues in late 1988 –  published the following year in a book on the liberalisation process, and which I reread last week –  in which the crash appears as not much more than a corrective to the excess enthusiasm for consumption up to 1987.)   The doves –  of whom there were plenty including Spencer and then Assistant Governor Peter Nicholl –  would, almost certainly have argued for further easings, allowing interest rates to fall materially further.       And yet it is far from clear that that would have been the right approach to have taken.

Inflation edged downwards only relatively slowly over 1989 and 1990, and it wasn’t until the big fiscal consolidation after the 1990 election, and as the 1991 recession unfolded, that we felt comfortable letting bank bill rates fall below the 14 per cent they got to in the months after the crash.  We, and other forecasters, misread the 1991 recession, but until that hit us we didn’t appear to be on track to getting inflation to target any sooner than the government had (by then) asked us to.  Inflation at the end of 1990 was still 5 per cent, and the target –  by then agreed by both main parties –  was 0 to 2 per cent inflation.  Getting inflation down isn’t technically difficult, but when real people and real institutions (with all their biases, incentives etc) are involved it can, and usually has been, costly and difficult.  Sometimes, a little learning can be a dangerous thing.  Perhaps a proper appreciation of the looming crisis, and the wasted real resources, at the end of 1988 would have made it even harder, perhaps even eventually more costly, to have secured something like price stability here.  I wouldn’t like to be seen as suggesting that we should welcome blind spots, or even ignorance, but sometimes perhaps they end up being less costly than idle theorising might suggest.

Finally, a week or so ago the Herald ran an interesting series of articles on the New Zealand experience in 1987.  The thing that most surprised me about those articles –  and in a way what prompted the thinking that led to this post –  was the almost complete omission of the role of banks in making it all possible.   Every over-optimistic borrower needs an over-optimistic lender if the loan is to happen.  There were plenty of the former, but all too many of the latter too –  whether state-owned lenders like the BNZ or the DFC or private sector ones, new entrants (NZI Bank anyone) or old, New Zealand owned or foreign-owned.  And the few institutions, on either side of the Tasman, who didn’t participate boots and all often weren’t particularly virtuous and far-seeing, but just slow.  Given another year or two, they’d probably have got into the mix too, and if existing management wouldn’t do so, well other managers could soon be found.

In many ways it was a classic financial crisis –  the definitive history of which has still to be written.  There was the displacement of genuine new opportunities, enough of a narrative for even the cautious to believe that the future would be quite a bit different and better than the past, official backing (indeed, at times, cheer-leading), extraneous feel-good factors like the America’s Cup, relatively weak market disciplines (especially in the financial sector), little experience in lending or borrowing in such a different world.  There were probably even some real success stories (I’m struggling to think of them, but readers can nominate some).   And it didn’t, to any material extent, involved lending to households.

It all happened surprisingly quickly.  14 July 1984 was the election day that brought the fourth Labour government to office, and 20 October 1987 began the crash –  just over three years.  It took far longer to unwind the mess than it did to create it.  It is the deterioriation in lending standards that happened so quickly that market monitors, and central banks, really need to be watching out for.    When they start sliding, a bank can be destroyed remarkably quickly.    Such marked deteriorations in standards aren’t every day events –  we, after all, have seen no bank failure since 1990 –  and they rarely arise out of the blue.  They usually take some shock –  some innovation –  that is likely to leave regulators just as uncertain what to make of it as the lenders are. That’s inescapable, but is a reason to be cautious about just how much useful difference even the best regulators can make.   Seeing no harm for 98 years earns you no real credit (and should not either) if you aren’t much better than the lenders in the other two years each century.

Deposit insurance wouldn’t put credit ratings at risk

There was a curious paragraph in an article by Alex Tarrant on interest.co.nz last week on post-election positioning .  Tarrant was writing about, in particular, fiscal positioning and the possibility that whichever party leads the next government could find its fiscal commitments put under pretty severe pressure because of the policy exepctations of the minor parties (New Zealand First on its own, or in conjunction with the Greens).  He argues that if Labour ends up back in opposition

It will also allow Labour to imply that National must have offered more to Peters on big-spending policies than Labour was prepared to. The hope for Ardern and Grant Robertson would be that National suddenly finds itself being attacked on throwing fiscal responsibility out the window with a set of coalition bribes. And this after the entire campaign was fought by National on sound management of the government’s books and plans to repay government debt to 10% of GDP, from about 23% now.

This could be a huge boost for a resurgent Labour Party even if it does go back into opposition. “We wanted to form a responsible government, but couldn’t get NZ First to agree to responsible spending.”

Labour might even be able to point to how certain policies might have put the government’s credit rating at risk – my understanding is that NZ First’s and the Green’s bank deposit insurance schemes could fit this argument.

The government’s credit rating currently benefits from ratings agencies placing less weight on that government would bail out a failed bank here, with the Reserve Bank’s open bank resolution policy and there being no government deposit guarantee/insurance in New Zealand. If introducing one means rating agencies rethink this position, the argument would be that a lower credit score would lead to higher government borrowing costs. (Peters’ policy on deposit insurance regards majority-owned NZ-registered banks; the Greens want a broader scheme.)

The main bit of the argument didn’t strike me as terribly persuasive –  the warm feeling of fiscal virtue would surely be of little solace to most Labour people on the dark winter nights if they did end up back in opposition for another three years.

But what had really caught my eye was the specific suggestion that New Zealand First or Greens preferences for some sort of deposit insurance scheme might imperil the government’s credit rating.  I’d made a mental note to come back to it, but yesterday someone asked my view on the suggestion, which is the prompt for this morning’s post.

The New Zealand government’s credit ratings are very strong.   There are foreign currency and local currency credit ratings, but for New Zealand only the latter now matter (there is little or no foreign currency debt, and no apparent plans to raise more).  Of the three main ratings agencies, one gives the New Zealand government a AAA rating –  the best there is –  and the other two give the government an AA+ rating, just one notch down.   That makes sense.   We not only have a low level of government debt (per cent of GDP) but successive governments have proved to have the willingness and capacity to keep debt in check when bad stuff happens.  The last time the New Zealand government defaulted on its debt was in 1933 –  and we had lots of company then.

Relatedly, our banking system has been strong and pretty well-managed.  There were some pretty serious problems in the late 1980s, immediately post-liberalisation, particularly with financial institutions that had been wholly government-owned (Rural Bank, DFC, and BNZ).   But since then –  and before that period for that matter –  banks have been pretty strongly-capitalised, and appear to have done a pretty good job of making credit decisions.  Banks took too many risks (were too complacent) in the 2000s around funding liquidity –  and needed a lot of official support on that score during the 2008/09 international crisis period.  But despite a really big credit boom in the 2000s, even a severe recession and quite a slow recovery –  and levels of income (servicing capacity) typically quite a bit below what would previously have been expected –  led to no serious systemwide impairment of the banks’ assets.  Loan losses rose, as they do in every recession, but to quite a manageable extent.   It was a similar story in Australia, Canada and quite a few other advanced countries.  The government put itself on the hook for some finance company failures (through the deposit guarantee scheme) and the ill-advised AMI bailout.  But that was it.

And these days, almost a decade on, pretty demanding stress tests on banks’ loan portfolios suggest that even a savage recession and a very severe fall in house prices would not be enough to topple any of the banks, let alone the system as a whole.  That isn’t grounds for complacency –  in the wrong circumstances lending standards can deteriorate quite rapidly –  but on the sort of lending the banks have been doing over the last decade or two, the banking system itself looks pretty sound.

Rating agencies still worry a bit about the large negative net international investment position of New Zealand (the net claims of foreigners –  debt and equity –  on all New Zealand entities).  Personally, I think that is an overstated concern: the NIIP position has been large for 30 years, but hasn’t (as a share of GDP) been getting any larger.  Mostly it is the net offshore funding of the banking system.   What matters then, from a credit perspective, is the quality of the assets on bank balance sheets (see above).   In my reading of the literature, big increases in banks’ reliance on foreign funding have often been a warning sign (internationally).  That hasn’t been the story here for a long time.

New Zealand is the only OECD country now that does not have a deposit insurance system.   The official rhetoric for a long time has been that depositors need to recognise that they can, and will, lose their money if their bank fails.  It is supposed to promote market discipline.  The Open Bank Resolution tool was devised to try to buttress that “no bailouts” message –  or at least to give ministers options in a crisis.  The OBR is designed to ensure that a bank can be reopened immediately after it fails (thus keeping basic payments services going). It does so through a mechanism that involves “haircutting” the claims of creditors –  the size of the haircut designed to be larger than the plausible, but still unknown actual losses –  while providing public sector liquidity support and a government guarantee to the remaning claims.  Without such a guarantee, rational creditors would mostly withdraw the remaining funds they did have access to as soon as the failed bank reopened.  In practice, since in a small system with quite similar banks all banks are likely to face quite similar shocks, such a guarantee might well need to be extended to the other banks (although I’m not aware that this latter point has ever been conceded by authorities).

It is no secret that governments tend to bail-out failed banks, and often end up offering a degree of protection that goes beyond anything in formal deposit insurance system rules.  That is particular so for retail depositors, but in the last major crisis of 2008/09 it was often true of wholesale creditors too (eg extreme pressure was brought to bear on the Irish government, by other governments and EU entities, not to allow wholesale creditors to lose money when Irish banks failed).

The practice might, in some abstract world, be undesirable, but it happens.    There are some signs now that authorities are putting more effort into trying to build regimes that make it more feasible for wholesale creditors to be allowed to lose money, while not disrupting the continuity of payments systems etc.  But there is no sign of such movement as far as retail depositors are concerned.

And despite the rhetoric, New Zealand’s track record hasn’t been so very different.  Governments twice bailed out the BNZ in the late 80s and early 90s.  The temporary retail deposit guarantee scheme was introduced with bipartisan support in the midst of the 2008/09 crisis.  And AMI –  an insurance company, not even a bank –  was bailed out, on official advice, only a few years ago.    Of course, many small finance companies also failed, and there was no bailout to those depositors.   But a rational retail creditor of a significant retail bank is quite likely to assume that if there is a bank failure, he or she will in the end be protected by the government.

Rational ratings agencies know this too.   In their ratings –  or banks and of sovereigns –  they take account of the probability of official government support.     It is likely to be a matter of serious concern in a shonky banking system, and in a country with high pre-existing levels of government debt.  It isn’t likely to be of much concern in a country with a good track record of stable banking, a low level of government debt, and a good track of reining in fiscal pressures.  And that is true whether or not there is a formal deposit insurance scheme in place.

For a long time I was staunchly opposed to deposit insurance –  like pretty much everyone at the Reserve Bank.  But I changed my mind probably a decade ago.  I’m not so worried by the question of whether it is “fair” or not for ordinary depositors to face the risk of losing money –  there are plenty of other areas where such uncompensated losses happen (eg house prices fall back, or the value of one’s labour market skills drops) –  as by realpolitik considerations:

  • at point of failure, governments are almost certain, whatever they say now, to bail out retail depositors of major core institutions, and
  • a pre-specificed deposit insurance arrangement increases the chances of OBR itself being able to work, and thus of being able to impose losses on wholesale creditors (notably offshore ones).

In an earlier post I outlined a scenario:

Suppose a big bank is on the brink of failure.  Purely illustrative, let’s assume that one day some years hence the ANZ boards in New Zealand and Australia approach the respective governments and regulators, announcing “we are bust”.

Perhaps the Reserve Bank will favour adopting OBR for the New Zealand subsidiary (since the parent is also failing they can’t get the parent to stump up more capital to solve the problem that way).    But why would the Minister of Finance agree?

First, Australia doesn’t have a system like OBR and no one I’m aware of thinks it is remotely likely that an Australia government would simply let one of their big banks fail.  But in the very unlikely event they did, not only is there a statutory preference for Australian depositors over other creditors, but Australia has a deposit insurance scheme.

I’m not sure of the precise numbers, but as ANZ is our largest bank, perhaps a third of all New Zealanders will have deposits at ANZ.

So, if the New Zealand Minister of Finance is considering using OBR he has to weigh up:

  • the headlines, in which ANZ depositors in Australia would be protected, but ANZ depositors in New Zealand would immediately lose a large chunk of their money (an OBR ‘haircut’ of 30 per cent is perfectly plausible),
  • and, even with OBR, it is generally accepted (it is mentioned in the Bulletin) that the government would need to guarantee all the remaining deposits of the failed bank (otherwise depositors would rationally remove those funds ASAP from the failed bank)
  • and I’ve long  thought it likely that once the remaining funds of the failed bank are guaranteed, the government might also have to guarantee the deposits of the other banks in the system.  Banks rarely fail in isolation, and faced with the failure of a major banks, depositors might quite rationally prefer to shift their funds to the bank that now has the government guarantee.

And all this is before considering the huge pressure that would be likely to come on the New Zealand government, from the Australian government, to bail-out the combined ANZ group.  The damage to the overall ANZ brand, from allowing one very subsidiary to fail, would be quite large.  And Australian governments can play hardball.

So, the Minister of Finance (and PM) could apply OBR, but only by upsetting a huge number of voters (and voters’ families), upsetting the government of the foreign country most important to New Zealand, and still being left with large, fairly open-ended, guarantees on the books.

Or, they could simply write a cheque –  perhaps in some (superficially) harmonious trans-Tasman deal to jointly bail out parent and subsidiary  (the haggling would no doubt be quite acrimonious).  After all, our government accounts are in pretty reasonable shape by international standards.

And the real losses –  the bad loans –  have already happened.  It is just a question of who bears them.  And if one third of the population is bearing them –  in an institution that the Reserve Bank was supposed to have been supervising –  well, why not just spread them over all taxpayers?    And how reasonable is it to think that an 80 year pensioner, with $100000 in our largest bank, should have been expected to have been exercising more scrutiny and market discipline than our expert professional regulator (the Reserve Bank) succeeded in doing?  Or so will go the argument –  and it will get a lot of sympathy.

So quite probably there would be some sort of joint NZ/Australian government bailout of the Australian banks and their New Zealand subsidiaries.  The political incentives –  domestic and international –  are just too great to seriously envisage an alternative outcome.

But let’s suppose the Australian government was willing to jettison the New Zealand subsidiary and leave it entirely to us what to do.  The domestic political pressures to protect retail deposits will still be just as real.  In those circumstances, a pre-established deposit insurance scheme (eg for retail deposits up to perhaps $100000 per depositor) would make it more feasible for a Minister of Finance to (a) cap the government’s support, and (b) allow the OBR tool to be applied, under which wholesale creditors would be allowed to lose money.   It still might never happen –  there will still be unease about ongoing access to foreign funding markets for the other banks –  but the option is more feasible than at present (with no deposit insurance in place).  From a fiscal perspective, a pre-specified credible deposit insurance scheme –  funded by a levy, and backed by a credible bank supervision regime –  could actually reduce the fiscal risks associated with a banking crisis, rather than increase them.

Finally, it is worth keeping the numbers in some perspective.  At present, properly defined net Crown debt is about 9 per cent of GDP.    Total (book) equity of all our banks is currently around $37 billion.   Savage stress tests at present suggest little risk of a severe shakeout making material inroads on that buffer.    Banking systems tend not to lose much money on housing-dominated portfolios, when those loans are put in place in floating exchange rate systems without much government interference in the housing finance market.  But lets assume a really savage scenario, in which across the banking system all the equity is wiped out, and 50 per cent more, and the government chooses to recapitalise the banking system.  That would involve  the government assuming additional gross debt of around 20 per cent of GDP.  But much of that would be “backed” by the remaining good assets of the banking system (in time the recapitalised bank could be sold off again) –  it is only the amount the government injects that is beyond replacing existing equity that represents a net loss to the taxpayer.  That amount would be less than 10 per cent of GDP, even on these extremely pessimistic scenarios.   You’ll remember a recent post in which I cited some earlier New Zealand research suggesting that an increase in government debt of that sort of magnitude might raise bond yields by just a few basis points.

Of course, if New Zealand ever did face a really severe shakeout of this sort there would probably be many other problems –  including fiscal ones (tax revenues fall when economies shrink).  The sovereign credit ratings might well be cut.  Not only would there have been huge real losses of wealth within the community, but something very bad would have been revealed about the quality of our banking institutions, our private borrowers, and of our official regulators.  But, again, whether or not we had a formal deposit insurance scheme would almost certainly be a third-order issue in the midst of such a disaster.

At present, with very robust government finances, and a banking system which, to all appearances, is also extremely sound, the choice to introduce a well-structured deposit insurance scheme would be very unlikely to affect the government’s credit rating.   There is an argument that some observers –  rating agencies even? –  might see it as a refreshing dose of realism about how banking crises actually play out, establishing institutions that better respect that realism –  and which charge depositors (through a levy on protected deposits) for the insurance they will, almost inevitably, be provided with.  Priced insurance –  even if imperfectly priced –  is almost always better than unpriced insurance.

And in case anyone thinks deposit insurance is some sort of weird “out there” policy, not only does almost every other advanced country have such a scheme, but a few years ago Minister of Finance Bill English was quite happy to concede, in responding to parliamentary questions from Winston Peters, that there are reasonable arguments to be made for such a scheme (particularly in view of the quite different regimes operating in Australia and New Zealand for many of the same banks).  And he didn’t appear to worry that deposit insurance might threaten the government’s credit rating.

(I’ve argued here that a proper deposit insurance regime increases the chances of OBR being able to be used, especially for wholesale creditors.   My long-held view about OBR hasn’t really changed: it is mainly a tool that could prove quite useful in handling the failure of a small retail bank (eg TSB or SBS), at least if the relevant parliamentary seats (New Plymouth or Invercargill) were not, at the time of failure, held by the governing party.)

Misconceived and deeply flawed

Later this week submissions close on the Reserve Bank Governor’s attempt to get the some sort of debt to income restriction added to the list of possible direct controls on banks upon which the government has bestowed its favour.  (I write it in that slightly awkward way because, by law, the Governor does not need the Minister’s permission at all –  Parliament, somewhat recklessly, appears to have given all those powers to the Governor personally, but a few years ago the Governor committed to only using restrictive tools that the government had approved of.)

This would be the latest in the series of direct interventions by which the Reserve Bank has been undermining the effectiveness and efficiency of the housing finance market.  For now, the (outgoing) Governor says he wouldn’t apply a debt to income restriction even if he had the Minister’s imprimatur.  But all it will need will be another rebound in the property market and Wheeler would no doubt be keen.  Whether his permanent successor next year shares that enthusiasm is, I would hope, something the Board and the (next) Minister turn their minds to in considering possible candidates for Governor.

I probably will put in a submission, but if so it will overlap in many areas with the paper just published by my former colleague (now Tailrisk Economics) Ian Harrison.    Ian spent many years in the prudential supervisory wing of the Reserve Bank and led the work on risk modelling that has underpinned the Bank’s positions on capital, risk weights etc.  He has previously written and published his critical analysis on the Reserve Bank’s decision to treat residential mortgage loans owed by investors as riskier than the same loan on the same security when owed by owner-occupiers.  It was published under the somewhat provocative title House of Cards – and I wrote about it here.

His new paper on the proposal to have a debt to income instrument available doesn’t have a provocative title.   But it is no less forceful in its conclusions.  Here is the bulk of Ian’s press release

A report by Tailrisk Economics on the Reserve Bank’s justifications for possibly imposing debt to income (DTI) limits on housing lending, shows that that they are deeply flawed.

The main problem is that the DTI is a crude tool that does not adequately assess borrowers’ debt servicing capacities, and which will perversely target better quality loans.

“The Reserve Bank has presented no substantive evidence that higher DTI loans are ‘excessively’ risky, or that a DTI ratio of 5 is a sensible cut-off,” said Ian Harrison, Principal of Tailrisk Economics, “but there is significant evidence that DTIs do not predict loan defaults, or reduce the likelihood or severity of crises”. The European Systemic Risk Board found, in a recent assessment of GFC performance, that DTI levels did not have any “relevant effect either on the prediction of the crisis or on the depth of the crisis” .

The application of the DTI limit to investor loans, which are the primary focus of the policy, is particularly misconceived, because DTI limits are only intended to apply to owner occupier borrowers. The DTI measure assumes that when investor purchases a new property their living expenses increase. “This simply does not make sense”, Harrison commented.

The effect of the policy could be to impose an effective LVR limit as low as 30 percent on professional investors.  No other country has imposed DTI restrictions on investor loans.

“Higher future interest rates do not pose a material systemic risk, providing the conduct of monetary policy is competent”  Harrison added. “Further, the Bank’s assessment that the restrictions would have a net welfare benefit, is very optimistic. Our assessment is that they will have  a welfare cost, like most misconceived quantitative interventions.”

Much of the case the Reserve Bank seeks to make for having the ability to use a debt to income limit rests on the assumption that banks don’t do risk management and credit assessment well and that, inevitably crude, central bank interventions will do better.  The Bank’s consultation paper makes little or no effort to engage on that point at all.  It provides no evidence, for example, that the Reserve Bank has looked carefully at banks’ loan origination and management standards, and identified specific –  empirically validated –  failings in those standards.  Neither has it attempted to demonstrate that over time it and its staff have an –  empirically validated –  superior ability to identify and manage risks appropriately.

One of the Reserve Bank’s bugbears is that while the current lending practices may look broadly okay at current interest rates, those same loans will look rather less sound if interest rates rise considerably.  Of course, banks already take into account the resilience of each borrower, including their ability to cope with unexpected changes in servicing costs.    I wrote about this in my post on the most recent FSR.

… there was something a little odd in the box the Bank included on “Vulnerability of owner-occupiers to higher mortgage rates“, clearly softening us up for the consultation paper on debt to income ratios.  They argue that

New Zealand is particularly vulnerable to a sharp rise in mortgage rates as the banking system funds a large proportion of its mortgage credit from offshore wholesale markets. The cost of this funding can increase sharply if there is an unexpected increase in global interest rates or a change in investor risk appetite, and banks are likely to pass on the higher funding costs to customers through higher mortgage rates.

But mostly this is just untrue.  The Reserve Bank sets the OCR in New Zealand based on overall inflation pressures in New Zealand.  If funding spreads rise –  as they did in 2008/09 –  and domestic inflation pressures don’t the Reserve Bank can easily offset most or all of the potential impact on retail interest rates by lowering the OCR.    That is what happened in 2008/09.

Of course, retail interest rates can rise, quite materially.  As the Bank points out, new floating mortgages rose from “around 7 per cent to over 10 per cent between early 2004 and 2007”.  Of course, as we used to stress at the time, fixed mortgage rates rose nowhere near that much.  But, more importantly, interest rates here didn’t rise because foreign rates were rising, but because the economy was cyclically strong, unemployment was low and falling, and wage and price inflation were increasing.  Wages rose roughly 20 per cent in that period.

It is fine and good for the Reserve Bank to do these sorts of stress-testing exercises, looking at what happens if interest rates rise to 7 per cent, or 9 per cent.  But in any realistic assessment, those sorts of substantial increases are only remotely likely if the economy is doing really cyclically well.  If jobs are readily available and wages are rising, not many people will be under that much stress even if interest rates rise quite a lot.  And those that are should quite readily be able to sell their house and move on.  It might be painful for them, but it simply isn’t a financial stability event.

Ian makes many of the same points, including

Financial  stability  will  only  be  threatened  if  there  is  a  large  number  of  borrowers   who  can  not  service  their  loans,  and  if  there  is  a  material  fall  in  house  prices.      If   house  prices  hold  up  through  the  interest  rate  cycle  then  borrowers  who  come   under  servicing  pressure  will  generally  be  able  to  resolve  their  problem  by  selling  the   house.  A  systemic  problem  only  starts  to  arises  if  the  interest  rate  increases  cause  a   large  fall  in  house  prices.    However,  if  this  did  occur  then  RBNZ  could  readily  respond   by  reducing  the  OCR.  It  is  almost  inconceivable  that  a  large  house  price  shock  would   not  feed  through  into  broader  economic  activity,  and  into  the  inflation  rate,  which   would  naturally  require  a  monetary  policy  response.    Mortgage  interest  rate  would   fall  and  the  pressure  on  borrowers’  servicing  capacity  would  be  relieved.

He also rightly highlights how unusual it is to propose including investor loans in a debt to income limit.  The Reserve Bank likes to highlight the debt to income limits adopted by the United Kingdom and Ireland, but simply hasn’t engaged with the fact that neither country includes investor loans in its limits.   Of the Bank of England Ian notes

The  Bank  of   England  has  the  legal  capacity  to  apply  DTI  limits  to  investor  lending,  but  has  not  done  so,   because  the  retail  DTI  limits  do  not  readily  translate  to  investor  lending.  Instead  the  Bank   requires  banks  to  meet  minimum  qualitative  standards  in  their  affordability  assessments.  In   addition,  banks  are  required  to  apply  a  2  percentage  point  stress  test  to  the  interest  cost   assessment,  and  the  test  rate  must  be  at  least  5.5  percent.  Where  buy-­‐to-­‐let  borrowers  rely   on  other  income  to  support  the  loan,  account  must  be  taken  of  taxation  and  living  costs.  This   is  basically  the  methodology  that  New  Zealand  banks  apply  to  retail  investment  lending.   There  are  no  further  quantitative  restrictions  such  as  times  interest  cover.  This  is  left  to   individual  bank’s  assessments.

In its assessment of submissions, the Reserve Bank should really be expected to provide rather more justification for the inclusion of investment loans than it has done to date.

Ian concludes his press release this way

“There are simpler, and less distortionary, ways of targeting ‘excessive’ house price rises, which appears to be the Bank’s primary motivation for DTI restrictions,” Harrison said. “Banks could be required to apply a prescribed higher test interest rate to affordibilty assessments.  This would provide the Reserve Bank with an interest rate policy tool that can be directed to imbalances in the housing market.”

His is a pragmatic response.   Mine is perhaps more hardnosed –  and perhaps less “realistic”.  It is no business of the Reserve Bank to be targeting house prices, targeting whether investors or owner-occupiers are buying, or even targeting levels of household debt.  Apart from anything else, they have no robust model of the housing market, or of the incidence of financial crises, and without those all they appear to have is gubernatorial whim, or the shifting winds of political preferences.  That is no basis for sound public policy.     The Bank –  and its political masters –  needs to be reminded of its mandate in this area: to promote the soundness and the efficiency of the financial system.  Direct controls that apply to one set of lenders and not others, to one set of loans and not others, to one class of borrowers but not others, are quite simply inferior on both limbs of that mandate to reliance on indirect instrument, such as capital standards, stress tests, and a deeply informed understanding of how banks are measuring, monitoring and managing risk.   To their credit, banks in countries like ours appear to have done a good job in recent decades of managing housing loan books.  It is a shame that the same cannot be said of the central and local government politicians and officials who have regulated urban land markets to the point where a house purchase is an increasingly impossible dream for too many of our fellow citizens.    How did we allow such disastrous outcomes?

Anyway, for anyone interested in the DTI proposal I’d commend Ian’s paper.  I don’t agree with everything in it, but is a detailed review of many of the relevant issues, and of the “evidence” the Reserve Bank seeks to rely on.  I hope that, for example, the Treasury will pay careful attention when they formulate their advice on the Reserve Bank inevitable (regardless of this “consultative process”) bid for approval to add debt to income limits to their toolkit of direct controls.

 

LVRs, interest rates and so on

I was recording an interview earlier this afternoon, in which the focus of the questioning was the Real Estate Institute’s call for some easing in the Reserve Bank’s LVR restrictions.

Of course, I never favoured putting the successive waves of LVR restrictions on in the first place.  They are discrimatory –  across classes of borrowers, classes of borrowing, and classes of lending institutions –  they aren’t based on any robust analysis, as a tool to protect the financial system they are inferior to higher capital requirements, they penalise the marginal in favour of the established (or lucky), and generally undermine an efficient and well-functioning housing finance market, for little evident end.  Oh, and among types of housing lending, they deliberately carve-out an unrestricted space for the most risky class of housing lending –  that on new builds.

That doesn’t mean I think it is remotely likely that the Reserve Bank will be easing the restrictions any time soon –  apart from anything else, it would leave their consultation paper on debt to income ratio restrictions looking a little silly.   Of course, it would be good if the Reserve Bank did lay out some specific criteria for lifting these ostensibly temporary restrictions, but with the toxic brew of rapid population growth and continuing land use restrictions in place, if I saw the world as they seem to, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to lift the restrictions either.

In any case, it isn’t that clear quite how large a role the LVR restrictions are playing in the reduction in sales volumes.   They must be playing a part, but so too will higher interest rates, and the apparent increase in banks’ own lending standards, and pressure through the parents from APRA (on the lending standards across the whole of Australian banking groups).  Which, of course, is also why it isn’t clear quite how much difference any easing back in the New Zealand LVR controls might make.  Some presumably, but even the Reserve Bank has never claimed that LVR controls would have a very large impact on house prices, or housing market activity, for very long.   And while I noticed an article this morning about negative equity, it is worth bearing in mind that, on the REINZ index (not using median prices), house prices have risen 65 per cent in the last five years, and are currently 0.6 per cent off their peak.

But what of interest rates?  A year ago, the OCR was 2.25 per cent, and today it is 1.75 per cent.  Thus, the Reserve Bank talks of having eased monetary policy.   Here are mortgage rates though.

mortgage ratesI don’t suppose anyone is taking out four or five year fixed rate mortgages, but across the entire curve, interest rates are higher not lower.   Or we could go back another year or so, to just prior to when the Reserve Bank began cutting the OCR.   The OCR has been cut by 175 basis points since then.   Even at the shortish end of the mortgage curve, rates are down only 50-70 basis points.

Having been reflecting this morning on Graeme Wheeler’s performance over his term, I had a look back at where interest rates were when Wheeler took office in September 2012.

mortgage rates sept 12Barely lower, even though core inflation –  on their own favoured measure – is as low today as it was then (and has been consistently low throughout his term).

I wondered if there were offsetting factors but:

  • Two year ahead inflation expectations are about 25 basis points lower than they were then (largely offsetting any reductions in nominal mortgage rates, to leave real rates little changed)
  • the TWI measure of the exchange rate is a bit higher than it was then,
  • the ANZ commodity price index, in inflation-adjusted world price terms, is hardly changed from what it was then.

Of course, the unemployment rate has fallen since September 2012, but there hasn’t been any sign of a pick-up in the best indicator of labour scarcity –  real wage inflation.

So, overall, it is a bit of a puzzle how the Governor expected to get core inflation back to fluctuating around the target midpoint without actually easing monetary conditions.  I don’t happen to agree with him on this one, but he keeps talking about how the huge migration inflows have reduced net inflation pressures (supply effects outweighing the demand effects).  If he really believes that it is even more puzzling that monetary conditions haven’t been eased.

I’m not sure how he’d respond.  But perhaps he could explain that too in the forthcoming speech.

 

Reserve Bank DTIs and the cost of crises

I was late getting round to reading the whole of the Reserve Bank’s consultation document, that backs its bid to persuade the Minister of Finance to agree to authorise them (at some future time) to impose debt to income limits on banks’ mortgage lending.   I’d heard from some people who’d read it that it wasn’t very good, but even so I was surprised how weak the document making the Bank’s case is.  This post isn’t a substantive response to the body of the document, which will probably come in a few posts over the month or so until submissions close.  Today I wanted to focus on just one assumption they make.

The Minister of Finance insisted that the Reserve Bank include a cost-benefit analysis in the consultation document, and one that was a bit more than the usual Reserve Bank effort (an unweighted list of unquantified pros and cons).    It is hard to do so when they aren’t wanting to impose the control right now, but they made a valiant effort.   The value in these things is not in the precise bottom line number (inevitably wrong), but in forcing regulators to spell out their assumptions.

In their cost-benefit analysis, the Reserve Bank assumes that a DTI type instrument can reduce –  by a third –  the risk of a financial crisis.    And they assume that (a) financial crises are really expensive (lost GDP) and (b) that in addition to reducing the probability of a financial crises, a DTI instrument can reduce –  by a quarter –  the severity (again, lost GDP) of such a crisis.      If all three assumptions aren’t correct –  if, say, a DTI instrument could reduce the probability but not the cost, or vice versa, or if a plausible crisis wasn’t as costly as the Bank assumed –  the expected net benefits shown in the paper would simply evaporate.

So how costly are financial crises (especially one concentrated in developments around housing) in moderately well-governed market economies which (a) have their own monetary policy, and (b) haven’t run up against hard fiscal constraints?    The Reserve Bank assumes a cumulative loss of 20 per cent (of a single year’s GDP) –  and they describe that as “conservative”, meaning towards the lower end of a plausible range.

The honest answer is that we don’t really know.   The relevant historical sample (of such crises) is exceptionally small.     And even when a financial crisis happens, it is hard to disentangle the contribution of the financial crisis itself from adjustments that would have happened anyway.

Of course, there is the United States in the last decade –  the case that grabbed everyone’s attention at the time.   Plenty of writers since have described it as ‘the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” –  in some respects (narrow financial system stresses) one could mount an argument that the recent episode was worse.    The Reserve Bank constantly like to invoke Ireland, but while that case study might be useful for some purposes, it isn’t for this one.   Ireland gave up its own monetary policy when it joined the euro, and so had little or no scope for any stabilising macro policy when the crisis hit.

So lets have a look at how things unfolded in the United States.     They had a nasty recession but they weren’t alone in that.  So one benchmark might be to look at how the US relative to, say, other moderately well-governed floating exchange rate countries, and especially ones that had lots of housing debt and house price inflation but didn’t have a domestic financial crisis.   Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Norway seemed like a nice subset of such countries.

This chart uses IMF WEO annual data. It shows real GDP per capita for the US normalised to 100 in 2007, the last year before the recession (and before the financial crisis itself intensified).   And it shows the average for the four rising house price non-financial crisis countries on the same basis.

US vs NZ Can etc

Sure enough, the US recession was deeper than that in the average of these other four floating exchange rate countries which –  despite the debt and run-up in house prices –  avoided both housing busts and financial crises.      But the cumulative gap between the two lines (ie adding up the differences across the nine years) is just under 10 per cent, which isn’t even quite half of the “conservative” assumption the Reserve Bank is using.

Of course, even among these four countries there are some quite different experiences: Australia didn’t have a real GDP recession at all, and Norway still hasn’t regained the level of per capita income they had in 2007.  That is why it helps to average across a range of non-crisis countries.

Is it a fair test?   If anything, I think the simple difference between the two lines errs towards overstating the costs of the US financial crisis.  After all, the US ran into the effective lower bound on nominal interest rates.  Standard Taylor-rule prescriptions would have had the Fed cut interest rates a lot more than the 500 basis points they did cut by (a nice chart I have in front of me from the Boston Fed illustrates that in the previous six easing cycles the Fed had cut by an average of more like 800 basis points).    And the US went into the crisis with much less fiscal leeway than our fairly unindebted comparative sample.   And, as it happens, each of the four comparators benefited from average terms of trade in the years since 2007 that were higher than those in the previous half decade or so.    By contrast, the terms of trade for the US have been weaker than they were in the pre-crisis years.

Of course, if I compared Iceland with the four non-crisis countries, I could come out with a number that exceeds the Reserve Bank’s 20 per cent loss estimate.   But the Icelandic crisis (a) wasn’t concentrated on housing, (b) was an order of magnitude more severe (in its own financial system) than the US one, and (c) the Icelandic government ran into severe policy constraints, including exhausting their capacity to borrow.    It is an important case study, but it isn’t the sort of crisis we should be thinking about in contemplating the possible use of DTI controls here.   Arguably, even the US experience is only somewhat enlightening given that an oversupply of houses was a significant element in the US experience.   An oversupply of houses might be fine thing here one day, but it seems unlikely to be an issue here or in other Anglo countries while tight land-use restrictions are in place.  But that is an issue –  not touched on in the Reserve Bank paper – for another day.

If a reasonable “cost of crisis” were, say, a third lower than then Reserve Bank assumes then, on their assumptions about everything else, there are no net benefits from a DTI instrument.