Here we go again, off down the road again
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Snoopy
...Those figures are a little different to those on the preceding page! So why the difference?
SNOOPY
So go back to your copy of "ANZ bank New Zealand Limited Annual Report and Disclosure Statement for the year ended 30th September 2013, Number 71 issued November 2013"
Then go back to Page 36 where Note 28 starts and then Read All of Note 28 (pages 36 to 43 inc).
If the term 'Risk Weighted' confuses you (I thought we had been through this a long time ago) then go read up about it (but not from wikipedia please!).
Best Wishes
Paper Tiger
ANZ NZ and Transfer Accounting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
macduffy
Hi Snoopy
The parent company paid its final dividend in December which would have depleted accumulated profits (capital) to some degree. Has there also been a "contributory" payment from the NZ arm to the parent in this quarter?
'ANZ NZ' is a fully owned subsidiary of 'ANZ Australia' which is the entity we can all buy on the sharemarket. That means any contributory payment from ANZ NZ to ANZ Australia would be one subsidiary paying another. IOW it probably wouldn't even register in the published ANZ Annual Report to shareholders.
However your question is interesting in that it goes to the heart of whether ANZ NZ is really a New Zealand bank, or just a branch of ANZ Australia ripe for manipulation.
Inspection of page 7 of the ANZ NZ declared "30th September Results" shows a proceeds of sales of loans to the NZ Branch (I presume from the parent in Australia) of $3,114m over the past year. Add this to the $3,781m change in NZ "deposits and other borrowings" (more cash in) and I get $6,895m. That is fairly close to the negative $7,071m offsetting cashflow entry of changes in loans and advances. I imagine the tie in of those totals is no co-incidence.
If anything on my simple analysis of the cashflow statement of the NZ operations, it looks like cash has net come across the ditch to New Zealand from Australia. But I find these bank financials notoriously difficult to pick apart and I may have missed something.
SNOOPY
EDIT: Thinking about it again, if the cash is coming into ANZ NZ, and so the loans must have been sold to ANZ Australia, then the ANZ NZ branch has exchanged the ultimate ownership of new loans for cash. This is good because it means they now have more cash to loan out on their growing loan book. But it is also bad because it means that the ultimate ownership of those loans has passed to the parent in Australia. I guess it now follows that more NZ customer interest payments will now head offshore to Australia.