Indi (operating as The Independent Mortgage Company) is a New Zealand-owned digital home loan startup founded by former big-bank executives, including Anand Ranchord and David Woods. [1, 2, 3]

What Indi Does

• Digital-First Lender: It operates entirely online with no physical bank branches, reducing operational overhead costs.

• Floating Rates Only: It focuses exclusively on low floating-rate residential mortgages rather than offering traditional fixed-term options.

• No Lock-Ins: It avoids break fees, hidden charges, and caps on repayments, letting borrowers adjust payments flexibly.

• Conveyancing Support: It provides a panel of lawyers to handle legal conveyancing and covers the cost if you use them. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The agency also noted New Zealand was implementing the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, in which tax authorities internationally would exchange more data.



Through the framework and annual exchanges with other tax authorities, local tax authorities would be informed about transactions and transfers of crypto-assets taking place overseas by New Zealand tax residents.



A spokesperson for Inland Revenue said the initiatives brought "much-needed visibility to the crypto world", shifting it from what had been "a vague grey area to international transparency with much tighter enforcement".

Current residential CGT rates of 18 percent and 24 percent could rise to match income tax rates of up to 45 percent if these proposals progress – timing of disposals may become critical.

Lotto reform: could a new prize-linked bond be a safer bet?

Researchers look back in time to see how people react when lotteries are restricted and an alternative is offered.

Imagine if the money from every Lotto ticket you bought had instead gone into a ‘lottery bond’. You’d still have a chance to win life-changing cash prizes, but your money would also be saved, earning interest and being paid back over time. If you don’t win, you don’t lose it all either.

In Belgium, where University of Auckland finance lecturer Dr Gertjan Verdickt lived most of his life, Lotto draws, like in New Zealand, are broadcast on national television each week, and this sparked his interest in how people respond when governments try to curb gambling.

The Business School researcher and co-author, Amaury De Vicq (University of Groningen), studied what happened after, in 1905, the Dutch government banned the sale and purchase of traditional lotteries but allowed an alternative: ‘lottery bonds’.

“We wanted to look back in time to investigate what happens when a government tries to shift gambling from something addictive and loss-making (lotteries) to something safer such as lottery bonds. How do different socio-economic groups react?”

These ‘lottery bonds’ were a legal fixed-income product that let people invest in a bond while also going into a prize draw. Buyers were guaranteed their money back, plus interest, with the added chance of winning. Similar prize-linked products operate in several countries today, with different designs.

Verdickt says this kind of government-run bond scheme could be attractive in New Zealand.

“Lotto is often defended because it funds community projects, which is fantastic, but it can disproportionately draw spending from people on lower incomes. Maybe the government could move towards supporting people to put money into something where they get a safe return, and the chance for a big win.

“A premium government-led bond-style product, different to the solely prize-based Bonus Bonds which wound up in New Zealand in 2020, could fund public projects, while allowing New Zealanders to grow their money rather than lose money week after week.”

So how did everyday Dutch people react when regular Lotto was banned?

The researchers drew on Dutch inheritance tax archives to create detailed portfolio holdings for 3,618 people, allowing them to track how different groups adjusted their investments after the policy change.

The researchers found that overall, less wealthy people put more money into lottery bonds, while wealthy individuals decreased their holdings.

“Although we didn't observe people’s prior lottery purchases, the magnitude of the move towards lottery bonds indicates that these bonds could be considered a substitute for gambling.”

Age and location mattered too. The researchers found younger people were less likely to take up lottery bonds, while older individuals showed a stronger move into them after the policy change.

The lack of interest in lottery bonds among younger individuals could be seen as a success in the Dutch government’s attempt to curb gambling, says Verdickt.

Lotteries and other forms of gambling remained legal in neighbouring Belgium and Germany, and the researchers say poorer people living farther from those borders were more likely to invest in lottery bonds than those closer by, who may have been tempted across the border.

Channelling the urge to gamble

The regulation of gambling has always been a challenge for governments, say the researchers, pitting concerns for financial stability and addictions against consumer demand.

“Our study shows the Dutch government’s lottery bonds were helpful; they channelled people’s urge to gamble into an instrument that also encouraged saving.”

He says governments like New Zealand’s might consider promoting a form of ‘lottery bond’ as a safer alternative to playing Lotto.

“Of course, these days people have so many options online and in-person when it comes to gambling. You can’t ban the urge to gamble, but you can guide people towards safer channels.

“The lottery bond offered by the Dutch government, for example, wasn’t a perfect investment, but it did provide a better option for many people.”
Read the working paper: Financial Regulation and Household Portfolio Reallocation: The Impact of the 1905 Dutch Lottery Ban

Verdickt is available to comment: gertjan.verdickt@auckland.ac.nz

A developer who created a 36-lot residential subdivision near Napier says two councils failed in their duty of care by allowing the subdivision to go ahead.