Andrew Laming, Director, NZAB

Imagine this scenario for a moment.  

You’re a dairy farm owner

Your dairy farm manager is doing your monthly feed wedge and he notices that there is a gap in supply and demand due to a poor start to the pasture growth in the month.  

But it is an easy and logical fix - he tells you that he needs to put a bit more feed in plus change the ratio of the feed mix. You do the numbers with him and it all makes perfect sense and delivers a tidy little profit.

So you, as the farm owner, go and speak to your feed supplier about getting some extra feed and possibly a slightly different mix.   

Your feed supplier knows a lot about dairy farming and a lot about feed.   

He knows that putting that feed in will make more profit.  

However, your feed supplier is not sure whether he should sell you that feed as he might be able to sell that feed for a better profit somewhere else.  

He is also a bit wary of selling feed to you, because you are a dairy farmer and he sells to a lot of dairy farmers already.    

You have always paid their bills, there is no issue there. Your farm is also having a fantastic year.   But your feed supplier is not interested in this.  

Eventually after plenty of time has passed and many discussions back and forth, you finally manage to agree with the supplier to get some feed - but only getting about half of what you need and it's also not really in the right mix ratio to get the most optimum performance.    

But you accept it - as what else can you do and its better than nothing.

The dairy farm owner goes back to the manager and tells him the news.  Rightly so, the farm manager cannot make any sense of this.

Andrew Laming, Director, NZAB

By now you will have probably heard about the RBNZ’s “funding for lending programme” (“FLP”).   Put simply, this is a mechanism the RBNZ is going to use to allow the banks to borrow new (freshly minted) money directly off the RBNZ at whatever the OCR is at the time.    At time of writing this is currently being forecast to drop to as low as -0.5%.

The reason RBNZ wants to do this is to stimulate growth in the economy with lower rates.  

At present our Reserve Bank Governor cannot guarantee that low OCR levels will be effectively "passed on" with current RBNZ tools.

These days the OCR rate is not linked to the cost of bank funding as it depends on where the market for customer deposits is at.  Which have of late been much higher than the OCR– driven by the laws of supply and demand and the regulations that require banks to seek most of their funding from NZ customer deposits or longer dated offshore lending.  

So a currently low OCR does not equal a banks own funding costs.   Which means it does not equal low cost lending (well, not “low enough”). The FLP is designed to get cheaper funding directly into the market, which by default should lower all forms of funding for the banks.

So in short, Mr Orr wants cheap money out in the NZ economy to get things humming again.   Sounds great right?

Well, that depends on where it goes.

So far, the RBNZ has been deliberately non-descriptive about where banks have to place that $50bn .   FLP programmes around the world are not uncommon and learning has shown that the less rules placed on the banks for the “direction of funds”, the more likely that bank’s will use it ( a recent example of this going wrong was the govt guarantee scheme for bank funding -too many initial rules meant very little was leant out initially ).

The FLP may include incentives to encourage banks to use the funds to expand new lending. In other countries, banks have been given a more favourable interest rate or higher funding caps if new lending growth expands. However, the risk of the RBNZ being too prescriptive is that Banks see too much red-tape or complexity making access to the new funding too onerous.

In order to predict where funds might flow, let’s step back and consider all the current elements of our banking system in NZ.

1. We have central bank rules that mean home lending is much more profitable for banks than Agri or commercial loans (Banks have to put far less capital against a home loan = much better return on this investment)
2. We have banks that are looking to lower overall costs, in particular the cost of their processing.   More, simple deals, more deals that fit into a box, less analysis of complex P&L statements all mean lower cost AI type lending decisioning.
3. We have banks that are commercially owned. Naturally they want to maximise profit and return to shareholders.

So put these elements together with $50bn of newly minted low cost funding thrown into the mix?   I think we can already see that the vast majority of the new funding will be going directly to new house loans.

We’re already seeing this happening in the market, before this scheme has even started.   We can see it in the streets and in the news.   Lines of people at open homes, frequent outlandish examples of auction prices going for above CV and a real air of FOMO with buying houses again.

It's self-perpetuating- more lending to a sector in itself makes the initial lending less risky for the bank.   Chuck more capital liquidity at a market and asset prices will rise.     NZ housing has benefitted significantly from this over a very long time - no different to what Farmland values did when we had double digit increases in farm debt over 2000-2014 (with a break in between for the GFC).

Don’t get me wrong, higher house prices will stimulate the economy.   Higher house prices will make everyone feel better again, spend money, keep jobs. It’ll encourage the construction sector plus all those allied to it. Also, many businesses borrow against their homes as a cheap source of funding.  

But can’t we do a little better than this?

Come back to Agri.   This is a sector that is currently experiencing near record profits. Farm cash yields are now averaging 6-8%, way above their long-term trends and way above alternative investments.     Its exporting real stuff.   Stuff that other countries buy and give us money for.   Export receipts. Absolute gold in a world with significant domestic consumption risks and where our key tourism sector looks like it will be in the doldrums for some time to come.

But guess what – Asset prices in Agri have fallen.   And guess why?   In large part due to reticence from Banks to provide more capital to the sector, due to banking regulations that have been inadvertently set up to discourage lending to the sector because of a perception of higher long term risk.  

And just like the housing market, this becomes self-fulfilling, but in a negative way. Less capital to the sector = lower asset prices.

Andrew Laming, Director, NZAB

Last week I was fortunate enough to have a week off with the family and we thought we’d do our bit for the South Island tourism sector. Although this meant a different thing to our three girls who thought that retail therapy was their part in the revival!

We went to Queenstown for a few nights before hopping over to Doubtful Sound for an overnight trip and then onto Milford sound for a similar experience.   Queenstown was nicely busy (without being frantic) and the tills and restaurants were ringing.  

However it was a much different experience in Te Anau and Fiordland where the customer numbers were clearly a shadow of their former selves.   Whilst it was nice to have more space, it did fell a bit eerie at times.   If you get a chance, get out and spread the business around NZ, you will not be disappointed!

Andrew Laming, Director, NZAB

There’s no debating farmers are a vital part of the economic recovery journey for New Zealand, so it’s time they get the lowered interest rates they deserve.

Firstly, a bit of background.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) regulations stipulate that banks have to hold significantly more of their own capital in a farm loan than they do in a home loan. They put this differentiator in place after the significant run up in Agri debt prior to the Global Financial Crises (GFC) - as this, combined with the subsequent retraction in commodity prices, caused a near meltdown of the system.

Rightfully so, they wanted to prevent this from happening again.   However, in hindsight, things never really panned out to be as bad as what they thought; whilst non-performing loans ran very high post GFC – they have improved considerably to where they sit today. Banks also didn’t experience the losses they all thought they might.  

Sure, things aren’t perfect out there, but the risk that each bank was facing back in GFC times, versus in real time today is considerably different.  

This graph below is a good illustration of the relative change in risk for the Agri lending sector over this period.