Taxation is Not a Systemic Threat to Credit Unions

The most critical threats to credit union’s future are not external, but internal.

Taxation is merely an ongoing PR gambit which both sides use to reload their lobbying coffers.  The decline, or demise,  of the credit union option won’t be from competitors, regulatory adjustments or rapid technology change; it will be from failure within.

Cooperative design provides an unmatchable completive advantage against all foes.  In credit unions the users are also the owners.   In all other firms the objective is to extract a profit from consumer relationships to pay another group, the shareholders, a superior market return.

The Internal Distancing

Over the past several decades, CEO’s and boards have moved further and further away from their members.  The owners no longer have a meaningful role except making transactions. The required  annual meetings often do not allow members to attend, let alone participate. Members are merely customers whose interests are subordinate to the institutional ambitions of the “elected” leaders and the board’s chosen CEO.

Washington’s  Faux Tax Strategy

The current effort in Washington State with bankers sponsoring legislation to tax state credit unions which buy banks is a creative PR move.  But it is not a threat to coop institutions. Most Washington charters have no interest in a bank purchase. In the several states that already tax all state charters, this has not stopped those firms from growing and competing.  Think Indiana’s FIT tax.

Moreover as in many tax situations the workarounds negate any real impact  For example, a credit union could buy an out -of-state bank or convert to a FCU to avoid the local tax.

This law change would not endanger any credit union’s future.  However  it does focus the spotlight on the internal divorce now occurring between credit union’s leaders and the member-owners.

A Growing Estrangement

Has a credit union member ever suggested  their organizaton use its collective reserves to buy out  a bank’s shareholders at at premium over market?  It could never happen.

Credit union leaders would never ask owners for their thoughts, let alone their approval. The members rarely are told the terms of the offer (unless the bank is publicly owned) while the bank owners who must approve it, are given all the details.  Bank buys are an executive strategy, not a member facing one.

Purpose versus Practice

The Washington State tax initiative is a creative effort to highlight  the increasing incongruity between credit union’s stated  purpose and  present practice.   Credit unions were not chartered to buy banks but rather offer consumers a better value proposition with an ownership role versus traditional banking options.

The leaders of credit unions buying whole banks have moved away from their owners and communities as their primary mission.  They use the member’s  reserves to purchase other firm’s financial assets which  provide  no direct member benefits. It’s he bank’s shareholders who are the winners.

The  Democratic Model and Get Rich Quick

The history of political democracies from ancient Greece and Rome through modern day examples, show that outside forces rarely subdue a democratic opponent. Rather democracy fails from within.  Leaders, initially elected,  use their positions to further their self-interest, longevity and ambitions versus serving the interests of those who put them in place.

In the first quarter of 2025, NCUA lists 35 credit unions “failures.”  However the word used was mergers.  Yet reviewing the list most are financially sound, long serving and in many respects focused on local community contributions. These charer cancellations are leadership defaults, not financial failures.

For the past decade mergers have increased as a central growth strategy for some credit unions.  Recently a series of large billion dollar mergers have been announced.  In the DCU (Massachusetts) and First Tech (California) $26 billion combination the two firms are almost 3,000 miles apart.  The press release did not specify a single concrete member benefit.   If you want more information, a member-owner is directed to contact the Silicon Valley PR firm managing the communications.

Follow the Money

In this and other large mergers there is no benefit described that the individual credit unions cannot deliver themselves.  Instead in these and in many smaller mergers initiated by retiring leaders, they are a get rich quick scheme for a few senior executives, or a retirement topping off.

Retiring leaders who gained a professional career and standing, eliminate that opportunity for others and the owners’ legacy of loyalty.  In return the depating CEO receives an enhanced payout or an extended sinecure.

The end result of these merger and bank transactions  is that the credit union system has been pirated away from its ownership roots.  These  entities then pad the budgets of regulators,  system coordinators and their professional operators  whose focus is size—both assets and compensation- not member-owner’s and community needs.

Disruptive leadership is necessary to reverse a system in which cooperative leaders have abandoned the advantage that built the sysem’s current prominence.  Taxation is not  a disrupter and could even accelerate these bank-like maneuvers using a “level playing field” justification.

Gaining Backthe Co-op Advantage

The secret to winning in a competitive market is to define the game you want to play, not play the game you find.  Credit unions built their success around a unique cooperative model.

Placing institutional priority on external acquisitions is neither new nor unique in market economies.  It is merely a bidding contest whether done via mergers or for bank purchases.  It is how monopolies are constructed- the ultimate capitalist ambition.

There is no current body nourishing the sustainability of cooperative financial services.  If the credit union system is to remain viable it will require new energy and coalitions formed by leaders pushing to the front.  Not to fight taxation, but internal subversion, and in some instances corruption, undermining the cooperative model.

Tomorrow I will introduce a person trying to rally and fortify the unique strengths of the cooperative system.

 

A Meditation on Today’s Uncertainty

The phrase “dark night of the soul” portrays  personal, and sometimes communal, feelings of no way out of present  trials.  The loss of hopefulness.

Frost’s meditation reminds us that  these dark valleys  reflect neither wrong nor right. They are part of our humanity.

Acquainted with the Night

by Robert Frost

I have been one acquainted with the night.
I have walked out in rain – and back in rain.
I have outwalked the furthest city light.
I have looked down the saddest city lane.
I have passed by the watchman on his beat
And dropped my eyes, unwilling to explain.

I have stood still and stopped the sound of feet
When far away an interrupted cry
Came over houses from another street,

But not to call me back or say good-bye;
And further still at an unearthly height,
One luminary clock against the sky

Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right.
I have been one acquainted with the night.

Buffett’s Wisdom For Credit Unions: The Casino in the Cathedral

On Saturday CEO Warren Buffett’s four-hour, open-ended Q&A with Berkshire shareholders was a lesson in leadership.  In life’s wisdom. And in human values.   It was his last time as CEO.

If you read one of many excerpts or listen to a recording, you will be rewarded with a superb public discourse.

One observation is especially relevant to an issue confronting today’s credit union system leaders. That is the radically different approaches to assure future cooperative resilience.

The Casino within the Cathedral

Buffett stated in one response:  “Capitalism in the United States has succeeded like nothing you’ve ever seen, but it has what it is, a combination of this magnificent cathedral, which is produced on the economy like nothing… the world’s ever seen. And then it’s got this massive casino attached.”

The casino describes the speculative, short-term, and potentially risky side of capitalism, where quick gains and money changing hands are the primary focus. The allure and rapid growth of the “casino” can lead to the neglect or overshadowing of the “cathedral.”

Responding to a question about hedge funds entering the insurance business, Buffett pointed out that these firms, which specialize in buying and selling businesses, follow different “fiduciary  feelings” than Berkshire.  Berkshire’s goal is to acquire a business for the long term (forever), not turn around and resell for short term gain.  He believes his approach is the best way to create long term value for his owners whom he wants to retain as well.

The Credit Union Analogy

Today there are two broad business approaches followed by credit union CEO’s. Driving these are two different “fiduciary feelings” about where one’s duty is directed.

On the one hand are those who believe the CEO’s primary goal is to maximize institutional growth quickly.  In some instances, this is through mergers or purchasing external assets or even whole firms (banks).

The primary motivation is maximizing the rewards of leadership.  Sometimes this is while employed; or if not then, cashing out by handing the firm over to another credit union for the right personal compensation from a merger.

A growing current example is the increase in “mega-mergers.”  These multi-billion combinations offer the owners nothing that the individual firms cannot deliver.  Sometimes they are an effort to eliminate a local competitor; in others, it is to gain a larger space and personal reward in the credit union Cathedral.

This Casino approach to leadership is described by writer David Simon in the composition Privilege.  It ends with the words, I’ll play by  those rules:

It’s almost like a casino

You’re looking at the guy winning

You’re looking at the guy who pulled the lever

And all the bells go off

And all the coins are coming

Out of the one-armed bandit

And you’re thinking that could be me.

I’ll play by those rules.

A Composition for the “Cathedral”

The purpose which built the credit union Cathedral is captured in this 1850’s folk song by Stephen Foster,  Hard Times Come Again No More.

The first verse sets the scene:

Let us pause in life’s pleasures and count its many tears
While we all sup sorrow with the poor:
There’s a song that will linger forever in our ears;
Oh! Hard Times, come again no more.

Followed immediately by the rending chorus:

Tis the song the sigh of the weary; Hard Times, Hard Times, come again no more; Many days you have lingered around my cabin door, Oh! Hard Times, come again no more.

“It’s a song about poverty–financial poverty first and foremost, but it also hints at a poverty of spirit, of general misery.

“What’s refreshing about it, what makes it stick in our craw, is its honesty. It doesn’t flinch or pull back from showing real human suffering, bringing it to the very entrance to the drawing room: “Let us pause in life’s pleasures.”  (Source)

This 2010 recording is one of numerous current arrangements.  It uses pictures of the Depression to reinforce this 170-year old challenge for the American economy.  It could be a National Anthem for the credit union movement.

This second arrangement is how a credit union leader like  Doug Fecher (former CEO of Wright-Patt CU) might have recorded with his group when presenting his vision.

How credit union CEO’s make this business choice  will determine whether the movement can maintain its Cathedral.  Or become just another group playing in the casinos of capitalism.

 

Harper’s Brookings Interview

I attended former NCUA board member Todd Harper’s interview with Aaron Kline of Brookings yesterday.  Thes session lasted an hour, was recorded and can be accessed here.

Notes from the Conversation

When asked why the administration removed the two members, Harper thought the firings were part of a broader strategy to eventually change the Federal Reserve Board before those terms expire.

In the February closed board meetings, he had voted for the staff downsizings that were  agenda items on the public April board meeting–which was cancelled.

He had not met with he DOGE people and was not aware of their role in the agency.  NCUA legal staff had not provided any advice versus the board removals.   Only Inclusiv had backed his suit so far. He expressed disappointment that America’s Credit Unions had taken a “wait and see” approach.

Data Referenced in Questions

In responding to two questions Harper used prepared data. One topic was the initial findings from NCUA’s call report collection of OD/NSF fees from credit unions over $1 billion.  The second was the number of CAMELS code 3, 4, and 5 ratings.  In both cases the data was used to support his previous positions.  He was critical of fees and asserted staff cuts could increase risk to the NCUSIF.  Therefore the need for a higher NOL cap.

In terms of future policy he listed three areas:  disclosure of executive pay for FCU’s, paying volunteer board members for dependent care, and revisiting the NCUSIF’s NOL cap.

When asked about taxation of credit unions he said it could impact safety and soundness by slowing the growth of retained earnings/capital.  But that Congress wlll decide the issue while noting the Washington state legislature’s proposal to tax state charters which buy banks.

My reaction.  The Harper one saw at NCUA, his priorities, selective use of data, and policy justifications were the focus.  This may have been due to the interviewer’s questions on areas such as naming rights for stadiums, bank purchases and OD fees.

Harper’s attention was his NCUA policy preferences, not the future of credit unions. There was no rallying cry to fight back on the firings. He is not turning the page either.  As he said in response to a question from a reporter, he is not  “going off Broadway.”

 

 

 

 

 

May 1: Time for a MayDay Call for Rule of Law and a Popular Uprising

America is not living in a normal period of federal governmental conduct.  Trump’s largest campaign donor ($275  million) Elon Musk was given a non-legislative, non-elected temporary position. Thus informally  empowered,  his DOGE teams have gone into every federal government and some non-governmental organizations to mandate staff and program cuts.

These cuts and program closures are of Congressionally authorized programs and spending.  This is a pure power play with no oversight, accountability or  any formal authority.

It is total power without limits. In a democracy those who are appointed or elected to positions of power are called leaders.  In an authoritarian government, these individuals are called rulers.

A Fight for the Cooperative System’s Integrity

On April 16 President Trump removed the two Senate confirmed democratic members of the NCUA board. Only Chairman Hauptman, a republican whose term ends this August, remains.  There was no reason given in the firing email. Sue me if you don’t like it.  And both fired members have filed suit in federal court.

The power of both law and precedent suggest this action is illegal.  It raises substantive questions about NCUA’s authority and future.  The bottom line is credit unions are in a fight for the financial and legal integrity of their system.

Some credit unions will want to wait and see what happens before acting.  Others will delegate the burden and pay someone else to chart the way forward.  Many will just go on with business as usual.  With all the uncertainties in DC the assumption is that NCUA is at best pre-occupied, or at worst NCUA won’t dare buck Trump’s deregulation stance and stand up to credit unions.

One long-time reader suggested another approach: There is no reason to stand by this board, or jeopardize your voice by association.  They were neither effective as administrators nor wise enough to see the fog of the last administration. .  .

Why not push for the quick organization of a new board and the forward progress it might bring.  In the very least be ready to work with this administration and keep the CU agenda clear of the fall out that will follow.

That presumes a democratic, participatory system.  That is not what we have as illustrataed by yesterday’s announcement of the larest credit union liquidation in at least six years.

The Unilever FCU  Liquidation

Here are the facts last published by NCUA about this sudden $47 million credit union liquidation announced by NCUA on April 30.

At December 30, 2024, Unilever’s total assets were $ 46.7 million; net worth, $4.1 million (8.95%), virtually no delinquency on a portfolio of which 90% is real estate loans.  There are five employees, a single office, and very high average share balances ($29,400) and loans ($58,502), while serving just 1,448 members.

No conservatorship was announced. Instead an immediate takeover with no announced effort to find a merger solution.  No facts or explanation for the los was provided except to say the credit union was insolvent. What caused this sudden loss discovery? Why the instant liquidation?

The absence of any facts or reasons for acting suggests another regulatory-supervisory failure that is just being expensed away with insurance funds.

It reminds one of the situation last July when NCUA suddenly discovered that Creighton FCU had lost 20% of its value in the days right after filing its March 2024 call report.  The newly discovered loss was approximately $13 million in a $67 million FCU.  The credit union was merged with Cobalt FCU. There was no NCUSIF expense.  And no explanation of where the money went.

In the Unilever case, Hauptman, a one-person NCUA board, approved the outcome.  There is no evidence in support of this action.  Zero transparency for the members and the public.  This is what one person rule creates.  Is Unilever just the first of a series of unilateral decisions by Hauptman?

NCUA’s Defense of a One Person Board

On April 18, 2025 two days after the two board firings, the agency published an internal staff memo on the current state of the NCUA Board.  The memo was unattributed and contained no statements by any NCUA person.  It was just an anonymous assertion with these points:

Please be assured that the NCUA has precedent and standing delegations of authority in place to continue performing all operational and statutory requirements under the authority of a single Board Member. No statutory authority, internal legal opinion or other objective fact was provided to support this “assurance.”

In support of this undocumented position, the agency referenced a purported past event:

“During the Bush Administration (2001–2002), Chairman Dennis Dollar acted as a sole Board Member. He held a Board meeting, voted, and took several actions, both administrative and operational. Chairman Dollar recently stated in an article  in CU Today, “The records are in place at NCUA from 2002 that clearly establish the precedent that the Chairman can act as the Board.”

This statement is the most problematic of all.  Immediately after the board firings, Dennis Dollar called them “unprecedented.”  But a day later he claims that his prior tenure is now the precedent to follow this unprecedented event (see same article).

However NCUA presents none of the “records” that Dollar says are in place and certainly references no legal opinion.

What is even more curious is that the official NCUA 2002 Annual Report page 13 states:

Board members confirmed

The highlight of NCUA’s legislative year occurred March 22, 2002, when the U.S. Senate confirmed JoAnn Johnson and Deborah Matz, both serving as interim appointees, to join Chairman Dennis Dollar to complete the three-member NCUA Board.  

According to NCUA’s public account, Dollar’s two colleagues were indeed present, serving as interim appointees. There is no mention of his taking any action to set a precedent for one person rule to be followed in the future.

Following NCUA’s circular reasoning in citing a former board member and then that person confirming it is OK to do so, NCUA closes its staff update saying:

“It is the NCUA’s long-held view that a single Board Member constitutes a quorum when there are no other Board Members. Chairman Hauptman and NCUA’s leadership are equipped with the required authorities to continue implementing the Administration’s priorities. . . 

The memo asserts an  anonymous long-held view with zero factual, no legal reference nor any public prior event where this opinion was expressed.  The long held view is  an argument made of whole cloth.

One could just have easily asserted that in any organization’s bylaws or chartering authority where a  quorum is required, the term presumes more than a single board member is necessary to conduct business.  That is a more reasonable understanding of the quorum requirement.

So instead of clarifying Hauptman’s authority as Chairman, Vice Chairman and board member, the three-in-one board situation now, the agency presents a shallow, undocumented explanation to the staff and the public.

What’s at Stake this May Day

The rule of law is at stake.  NCUA has become a basterdized agency with no apparent legal grounding.  Fire the board and turn the agency into  one person rule,

This is the reason for the Unilever FCU unexplained liquidation is so important.  For the most consequential action the regulator can take versus a credit union is to put it out of business with no due process or public accountability.

The action was intended to demonstrate we’re really in charge now.  It is the largest liquidation in six years or longer.  A first example of how  the agency now “will ensure America’s credit unions are safe and sound.”   And if this arbitrary assertion of power can happen to Unilever FCU, it can happen to any credit union.

Credit unions today are confronting a situation where the entity charged with overseeing the legislation and regulation protecting the system, is itself acting extra-legal, unable or unwilling to even defend its current board status.   In other words the agency which enforces the law cannot defend its own legal standing.

Where are the agency’s lawyers so quick to explain the agency’s legislative interpretations?  Did they challenge the firings?  Brief Hauptman?  Were there resignations on principle if there was an obection?

Every NCUA employee took an oath to support the constitution, not a specific person in power.  Where are those individuals of courage and character in the agency?  Silence is consent.  Consent is capitulation.  That is the end of the credit union democratic experiment, unless there is a MayDay uprising starting now.