logo
Deposit scheme reduces risk, boosts trust

Deposit scheme reduces risk, boosts trust

NZ Herald09-05-2025

On July 1, New Zealand launches its Depositor Compensation Scheme (DCS), a transformative policy aimed at protecting savers and rebalancing the financial sector.
Designed to safeguard up to $100,000 per depositor, per licensed institution, in the event of a bank or deposit-taking institution's failure, the DCS brings New Zealand in line with international standards, particularly those of OECD nations.
Brent King, managing director of General Finance, calls this 'a very positive development' for investors and deposit-takers alike. Together with greater access to the Exchange Settlement Account System (ESAS), which enables licensed non-bank deposit takers to settle directly with the Reserve Bank, the DCS reshapes the landscape for smaller financial institutions.
Mandated under the Deposit Takers Act 2023, the DCS ensures that if a licensed deposit taker – such as a bank, credit union, building society, or finance company that accepts retail deposits – fails, eligible depositors receive up to $100,000 of their savings quickly. This coverage is per depositor, per licensed deposit taker, and applies to accounts like savings, transaction and term deposits, covering individuals, companies and trusts.
Unlike investments such as shares, the scheme focuses solely on deposits, offering automatic protection without requiring registration. 'In simple terms, DCS protects investors, making deposits in companies offering returns more attractive because risk is reduced,' explains King. 'But this only covers the first $100,000, so some investors might spread their money across multiple companies to protect more of their investment.'
Funded by levies paid by deposit takers, the DCS builds a reserve over time, with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) overseeing its management. Should the fund fall short during a crisis, the Government steps in as a backstop – though the long-term goal is industry self-sufficiency.
King emphasises its practicality: 'The idea is that protecting a portion of a DCS qualifying investment gives people enough to get through the next stage in the event of a company failure. It's not about making you whole, but ensuring you can pay groceries, rent, or power bills.'
Finance company failures are rare but not unheard of. Echoes of Hanover Finance still linger. Lacking the capital access of the 'big four' banks (ANZ, ASB, BNZ and Westpac), smaller or innovative players in the financial sector face greater risk.
King describes the DCS as overdue, addressing a long-standing gap in New Zealand's financial system. Previously, the country relied on mechanisms like the Open Bank Resolution (OBR) policy, which could freeze accounts during a bank failure, leaving depositors stranded. 'For example, if your pay was going into a frozen account, things would quickly become very difficult,' King notes. The DCS prevents such scenarios, ensuring liquidity while authorities assess broader solutions.
The absence of such a scheme created an implicit assumption that the Government would bail out major banks, tilting the market heavily toward the 'big four'. Smaller players, including General Finance, faced a trust deficit despite offering competitive rates.
The DCS changes this dynamic. 'It may not entirely level the playing field, but it tilts it toward smaller finance companies seeking to innovate and compete,' King says. 'Investors can now place money with downside risk of basically zero for the protected amount.'
Bank failures are erratic, often tied to rare events like the Global Financial Crisis, occurring roughly every 15–17 years. The RBNZ is still refining the levy system, which deposit takers like General Finance will fund to build the DCS reserve.
The DCS dovetails with other RBNZ developments, adds King, including ESAS, which enables direct settlements with the Reserve Bank for non-bank deposit takers. This aids capital management, reducing overheads for more market players and further stimulating competition in the financial services sector.
As the DCS prepares to launch on July 1, its rollout reflects careful planning. Delayed from earlier targets to ensure readiness, the scheme promises to bolster confidence without destabilising the market. King, with a touch of humour, remains optimistic: 'The Government is doing the right things with DCS and ESAS. We all like to complain about various goings-on, but there's good news here for the sector as a whole.'
Investors should look for the official RBNZ DCS logo to identify financial institutions that are included in the scheme or contact the RBNZ if in doubt.
Effective 1 July 2025, General Finance's secured term deposits are covered by the DCS, up to $100,000 per depositor.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The dollars and sense of introducing capital gains taxation
The dollars and sense of introducing capital gains taxation

Otago Daily Times

time9 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

The dollars and sense of introducing capital gains taxation

Tony Fitchett questions the maths on capital gains and property taxes. Gerrard Eckhoff (Opinion ODT 9.6.25), railed against the possible introduction of a capital gains tax "and its numerous close relatives — the land tax, the wealth tax, asset tax, inheritance tax which all hover over those who choose to take a risk to benefit themselves and their families". He claims that advocates of higher taxes ("the Left" and "the tax and spend gallery of the envious") "believe that a CGT is needed to offset what they see to be the original sin of being productive and successful". That description of those arguing for CGT and/or wealth tax is about as accurate as his arithmetic, as in: "land or a building in 50 years' time will be worth a few thousand percent more than its value today ... so a $3 million home will be commonplace". Taking "a few" as three, adding 3000% to the current average house price of $914,000 would make $28.3m, not $3m. New Zealand at present suffers from low tax income, significantly less than comparable OECD countries, and inadequate for funding its essential social services: education, healthcare, housing for the poor, and support of the disabled, sick, and unemployed, not to mention NZ Super, let alone paying for its planned defence spending growth. He seems to regard any form of taxation of capital acquired through business as evil, comparing it to "demanding money with menaces", and asks "why it is so wrong to be able to sell your main asset untaxed after a lifetime of work and retire with some discretionary spending money?". He doesn't show, though, why it is acceptable to tax every dollar earned by those on the minimum wage (or less), who often struggle to buy food, housing, and heating, but not the capital generated by their hard work, and eventually realised, mostly tax-free, by their employers. Most OECD countries have a CGT, as well as steeper progressive income tax rates — Australia (which is attracting many of our young people) doesn't tax the first $18,200 earned, but has a top marginal income tax rate of 45%, plus 2% Medicare levy, on income over $190,000, compared to NZ's 39% on income above $180,000. It has a CGT (allowing for inflation, excluding the family home). Many OECD countries also have inheritance tax, ranging from 4% (Italy) to 80% (Belgium). New Zealand already has a CGT, on rental property resale, though the present government severely reduced its scope. It could be extended to cover most realised capital profit (perhaps exempting owner-occupied homes), but that would take significant time to introduce and to start producing significant tax income. A form of real-property tax, as proposed by economist Susan Edmunds in 2020, which would deem the value of real estate above a personal exemption threshold to be capital invested and earning a notional income, to be taxed at that taxpayer's marginal rate, could be implemented quickly, as property values are regularly measured, and the IRD could easily incorporate the necessary calculations into its systems. An inheritance tax should also be considered, which, as Thomas Picketty has argued, would restrain the inequality explosion New Zealand has suffered over the last 40 years. Mr Eckhoff claims "Few members of the Left have ever owned and run a business, so simply do not understand the implications of extra taxation of small businesses." I was once an owner-operator of a small business and an employer. The most difficult tax problem I had wasn't business-related but personal: managing the provisional tax system with a marginal tax rate of 66% (that dates me) on my personal earnings. Personal-realised CGT, and property and inheritance taxes, aren't taxes on a business. They are taxes on individuals' income and assets, whether earned by daily work or by capital gain. IRD research shows that from 2015 to 2021, while middle-income New Zealanders paid, including GST, an effective tax rate of 20.2% on their personal income, the equivalent for the wealthiest, thanks to realised capital gains and use of trusts, was 9.2%. Is that fair, Mr Eckhoff? • Tony Fitchettis is a retired doctor.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store