The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has given more detail on a planned one-year review of its prudential regulation for banks and non-banks, including a look at how efficient its rules are after a swathe of new regulation was imposed after the financial crisis. RBNZ deputy governor Grant Spencer released the details of the review in a speech to the New Zealand Bankers Association in Auckland. The bank announced there would be a review when it released its half yearly Financial Stability Report on May 14, but gave no details at the time. "Our aim is to improve the efficiency, clarity and consistency of prudential regulation. We must be sure that our prudential regulations are fit-for-purpose and that the benefits outweigh the constraints and costs," Spencer said."The review is not intended to redesign the basic building blocks of the regime that we regard as appropriate and necessary for a sound and efficient financial system," he said."The review of prudential regulation will shape and thin the stock of regulation rather than being a severe pruning."Spencer said the scope of the review would include the regulatory documents, regulations and legislative provisions containing the prudential requirements for banks and non-bank deposit takers.This would include all the standard conditions of registration, guidance and Orders in Council that make up the Banking Supervision Handbook and its requirements relating to everything from capital to Open Bank Resolution pre-positioning.Spencer said the project would not look at changing the Reserve Bank Act itself or the recently enacted Non-Bank Deposit Takers Act. It would also not revisit the need for sufficient capital, liquidity, robust risk management systems or strong governance. The review would not include the insurance regime only just launched by the bank.The review would take 12 months and include a scoping workshop with industry participants and public consultation on a final set of proposals. A final report with conclusions was expected in September 2015, he said.Spencer said that, ahead of the workshops, he wanted bankers to think carefully about how they assessed regulatory costs. "Different banks and people within banks give us different perspectives," Spencer said."For some the impact on directors' work programs is the main issue; for others it is the cost of capital; for others it is the resources tied up in consulting on and implementing regulatory change," he said."Keeping in mind that the fundamental building blocks of conservative capital, liquidity, risk management and governance are taken as given, we would be interested in industry views on what one or two big things would really increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory regime."