Then, with horror, he announced: “Oh, my great, good God. Gentlemen, your attention, please. I am detecting a gigantic amphibious life-form. It’s 80 meters long and it’s heading this way.”
A frog hopped out of the Loch and onto his shoe.
Then Professor Frink realised that he hadn’t been using his Monster-Ometer. He’d turned on the Frog-Exaggerator.
A Reserve Bank press release this week warned, “Climate change stress test highlights flooding risks”. The first paragraph cautioned that river and surface water flooding “may pose an even greater risk to bank residential mortgage portfolios than coastal flooding.”
Professor Frink was at least embarrassed about having used the wrong machine. He didn’t write press releases emphasising the large size of the frog that had jumped onto his shoe.
Because if you read through the report, it looks like RBNZ has been using its frog-exaggerator for climate risk to the financial system. Again.
The Bank assessed how many mortgaged properties might be affected by flooding by 2100, if sea levels rise by a metre, a 1-in-100-year event happens, and if banks do not change their lending practices.
Almost 4% of mortgaged properties will be in the flood-zone of a 1-in-100-year storm tide that happens on top of a one-metre sea level rise.
In Auckland, more than a quarter of mortgaged properties touch at least some small part of river flood zones.
Really, the numbers are a lot smaller than we might have expected.
But more importantly, and as the Bank’s report later points out, a heck of a lot can happen between now and 2100. Almost no loans are for more than 30 years and 80% of current mortgages in these flood-zones have low loan-to-value ratios. Defaults are unlikely.
There is substantial risk of sea level rise over the coming century, but banks aren’t stupid. Most mortgages turn over in about three years and banks will be less likely to provide mortgages for houses that have high risk of being underwater. In BusinessDesk, Jenny Ruth calls the Bank’s arguments ‘spurious’.
Climate change is hugely important. But it just isn’t a substantial prudential risk for the financial system.
There are far bigger financial risks out there. For example, a Reserve Bank that spends too much time playing with its frog-exaggerator when an inflation monster is running wild.
Because if you read through the report, it looks like RBNZ has been using its frog-exaggerator for climate risk to the financial system. Again.
The Bank assessed how many mortgaged properties might be affected by flooding by 2100, if sea levels rise by a metre, a 1-in-100-year event happens, and if banks do not change their lending practices.
Almost 4% of mortgaged properties will be in the flood-zone of a 1-in-100-year storm tide that happens on top of a one-metre sea level rise.
In Auckland, more than a quarter of mortgaged properties touch at least some small part of river flood zones.
Really, the numbers are a lot smaller than we might have expected.
But more importantly, and as the Bank’s report later points out, a heck of a lot can happen between now and 2100. Almost no loans are for more than 30 years and 80% of current mortgages in these flood-zones have low loan-to-value ratios. Defaults are unlikely.
There is substantial risk of sea level rise over the coming century, but banks aren’t stupid. Most mortgages turn over in about three years and banks will be less likely to provide mortgages for houses that have high risk of being underwater. In BusinessDesk, Jenny Ruth calls the Bank’s arguments ‘spurious’.
Climate change is hugely important. But it just isn’t a substantial prudential risk for the financial system.
There are far bigger financial risks out there. For example, a Reserve Bank that spends too much time playing with its frog-exaggerator when an inflation monster is running wild.
Dr Eric Crampton is Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
Touché! You are absolutely right. Another more familiar term is "boxing at shadows" and I can't help but feel that the RB in its desire to be woke; in its aspirations to embrace animism, te reo, gender descriptors and other inconsequentials (ie. alignment with current political narratives), it's taken its eye off the one thing that universally impacts everyone. Certainly some blame can be ascribed to the directives given to it by this Government, but that notwithstanding, they seem all too keen to be distracted.
Oh look, what's that over there? Nothing, just a distraction.
To think these people get paid so much to do so little.
To think these people get ANY credibility in a country's MSM after all the crap they have done to our economy which is headed downhill at high speed.
MC
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.