Credit unions were very critical of both NCUA’s risk based capital proposed rules in 2014 and 2015. Among the major objections were:
- Failing to document any objective need for the rule
- Creating multiple shortcomings and inconsistencies in asset risk weightings
- Establishing a competitive disadvantage versus bank capital options
- Undermining member value in both costs to implement and higher capital levels
- Providing open ended examiner authority to interpret circumstances and override the rule
- Imposing a one-size-fits-all national formula for risk and capital adequacy for over 5,000 diverse institutions serving thousands of different markets
- Ignoring banking regulators’s experiences which led them to drop RBC in favor of a simple leverage ratio
- Overlooking the negative impact of RBC on the corporate system’s ability to serve members
The concept of RBC can be useful at an institutional level because decisions and reserves are based on specific experiences (delinquencies and returns) for an asset’s known historical performance.
However, what works locally does not scale up to a single national formula.
The Fundamental Flaw of The RBC Concept
No team in any sport would try to win a contest by only playing defense. To compete in any activity, an organization must have both offense and defense.
But a one-sided approach to financial soundness is what RBC mandates. It requires credit unions to reserve based on a formula for risk and ignores all factors for income or return.
Every cooperative succeeds by pursuing, sometimes seizing, opportunity. Credit unions were begun as a solution for consumers that were not well-served by existing choices.
A formula that attempts to measure only risk means examiners and credit unions will be inhibited or even restricted in responding to individual or unusual circumstances. Especially members in a crisis.
Every credit union monitors risk daily when it prices loans or evaluates investment yields. The projected return is balanced with an asset’s risk whether duration or credit, and in the context of the balance sheet’s overall ALM position. Using a single formula to evaluate these decisions distorts everyday business practice and experience.
Risk for an individual credit union is more nuanced than a simple formula that assigns relative risk weightings for almost 100 asset classes. As any board or manager knows, such an approach is not how asset strategies are developed.
RBC does not reflect pricing to pursue market opportunities. It imposes a single national risk profile to replace the accumulated financial experiences and judgments which managers now use in each of their institutions.
Risk is not a bad thing. Risk is considered whenever a credit union makes a loan, a CUSO or other investment, or a fixed-asset purchase. The judgment in the decision is the opportunity to help a member or enhance the credit union’s financial management, not how it conforms to a one-size-fits-all rule.
Risk Based Capital Is A Tool, Not A Rule
The risk based capital rule is a mistake.
If there is any benefit in a single formula to assess a cooperative’s financial soundness, then NCUA should validate that by using the risk-based analysis as a tool in examinations.
Imposing a one-size-fits-all rule denigrates the knowledge and experience of credit union managers across the country. It is contrary to the purpose of the cooperative model.
If risk analysis were as simple as a single formula, then there would be no need for cooperatives — just one financial charter license, one common set of rules, and one way to serve the market.
Credit unions were started because the existing financial frameworks and ways of doing business did not meet the needs of member-owners or of their communities.
For more than 100 years, credit unions have used a reserving-capital process that requires they set aside an amount or percentage of income as a cushion for difficult times and to meet minimum well-capitalized targets.
This approach has worked. It has well served members, the regulators, and the American economy. Reserving is a holistic judgment that balances opportunity and member need with the uncertainties inherent in any market economy.
RBC plays defense only by focusing on one very narrow factor in managing safety and soundness. It adds nothing to the evaluation of specific opportunities or individual credit union business situations.
More importantly, if the complex formulas are wrong overall, or in respect of any asset category, that mistaken judgment could push credit unions over a cliff who followed the letter of the law.
Reserving beyond meeting the well-capitalized minimum leverage ratio of 7% is best done by the boards and managers who are directly accountable for their judgment, not government bureaucrats.