Putin’s Pimp

(Interupting my vacation from blogging to comment on an event today)

The most prominent leader of the free world where the country’s elected President stands up for and believes in democracy will be at the White House today.

That person is Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  His people have fought the second largest army in the world to a standstill.   Today he is on the front lines fighting for liberty from authoritarian rule.  A cause that Americans honor on July 4 or recall from personal experiences of WW II.

His host is President Trump.  Last Friday Trump gave the literal red-carpet treatment to a dictator who has been indicted for war crimes from killings in Bucha to the bombing of a building in Mariupol protecting hundreds of children.  And the kidnapping of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children to convert them to Russian citizens.

In the prelude to their Friday  meeting Trump set the public goal as an immediate ceasefire, or in his words, there would be immediate, severe consequences.  Instead, Trump was transformed into Putin’s messenger to convince Zelenskyy  to give up territory to an aggressor who wants to destroy Ukrain’s identity as a people and country.

I am ashamed by this act of political betrayal of America’s most basic political and moral values.  Trump wants to get a peace prize by brokering Ukraine’s surrender.

No matter the public announcements from today’s discussions, the war will continue.  There will be more talk of further meetings.  As long as Trump believes words and threats will change Putin’s goals, there will be no cessation of hostilities.

Putin positioned Trump  to force Zelenskyy to accept an outcome the two crafted without his presence.  Trump’s pimping for Putin will fail.

Ukraine will persevere, because they know what it takes to be truly free, a spirit and cause Americans used to honor—and fight for.

 

 

 

 

 

A Short Vacation

Credit union email followers:

I will be taking a brief leave for the next ten days to spend some quality time with my yard and in the pool.

Will be available via email for questions, followup or suggestions at Chipfilson@gmail. com.

Jump the Likely Drop in Market Rates

Unless there is a complete change in market sentiment or a “black swan” event, the consenus is that the Fed will lower interest rates by .25% in September.  Or for sure by October.

If that is your assessment, why not get ahead of the market with a special announcement to your members such as:

We’ve lowered our mortgage rates!

If you’ve been waiting for a sign to buy a new home, this could be it. Take advantage of ournew rate discount

Or it could be auto loans, student loans or HELOCS.

If you wait till the Fed makes a move, you will just be part of the market’s noise.

Why not get ahead of the game?  Start your “lowering our rates” campaign while everyone else just talks about it.  The President might even take note of your initiative!

NAFCU’s Founding Story

From Iron Wills to Silver Anniversary, NAFCU Turns 25

Credit Union Times, April 22, 1992

By Frank Diekmann, CU Times Managing Editor

Los Angeles — They were a frustrated group when they met for that first time at the Cockatoo Inn in Inglewood, Calif. The idea had been hatched out of the disappointment felt by a handful of managers at federal credit unions who believed the dominant CU trade association had little interest in them—and even less interest in federal share insurance similar to that insuring bank deposits.

No one even knew how many of their compatriots would show up at the luncheon that was held to explore interest, yet more than 50 did. Now, some 25 years later, the proposal that federally chartered credit unions ought to be federally insured is not just accepted as fundamental—it’s one of the movement’s proudest accomplishments.  And the little credit union group that could has evolved into the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, which today has 750 members and a budget of $4.6 million.

There have been bumps, bruises and victories since the group was issued its charter in 1967 and set off on its engaging journey. The comparably huge Credit Union National Association made a determined effort first to eradicate the new association, then to absorb it via merger, and finally—conceding that the upstart was here to stay—to patch up differences so that the movement could present a unified front on Capitol Hill. . .

The CU Times story continues in these further sections on page 8:

First meeting in 1966

Putting the National in NAFCU 

Early opposition

Early support in Florida 

Trade group tension

Early signs of (some) cooperation 

An electronic future. . .

(Source: Credit Union Times Vol.  3, No.16)

Words to Start Your Day

From a CEO’s monthly staff update. This story is about a senior consumer loan specialist’s impact in just one month with member comments.  People make the difference.

“Chad received twelve 5-Star reviews from members in just one week. One new member shared: “Chad was very patient, answered all my questions, and got our loan processed in under two weeks!” Another noted Chad’s quick responses and expertise: “He went above and beyond to help me understand my options. Chad should teach classes on customer service excellence.”

“When helping one member with a colorful credit history, he evaluated her relationship with the credit union, coached her on how to improve her credit and found a way to meet her loan needs. The member called Chad back with friends on the line so they could all ask him questions about credit rebuilding strategies.”

Members  Own Words

I’ve banked with you guys for 10+ years. I feel like you’re fair and you’ve always been willing to help me when I need it. Example I had like 4 overdraft fees happen at one time and when I called, the agent was knowledgeable and explained everything and waived some of the fees I had put the wrong card. You guys were nice enough to understand the mixup and help me. Other banks I’ve had are just like “tough-deal with it,”  you’ll keep getting fees until paid. When I got married, I refused to give up my account with you guys.

I have been with the Credit Union for over 20 years, and they always are willing to help and give their customers the best service and rates. I cannot say this for many credit unions in the area. You  gave me a loan to pay off my debt and gave me a better interest rate than any other credit union. I have gotten multiple loans through you and they always make it simple and keep you informed. Just recently Chad helped me get a home equity loan. Thanks, for all you do.

Great customer service. Answered all questions, made the whole process seamless and done within 24 hours. I enjoyed the service so much. I just refinanced my second vehicle with you.

There’s not enough space to share my gratitude to Ms. Jessica who showed genuine care for a confused aged person.

 

 

 

Learning from History as We Debate the Past

Eighty years ago in August  1945  America exploded atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagaski. These actions propelled a quick end to the war with Japan.

President Truman’s  decision has been much debated since.  Some believe it was necessary; others disagree arguing that either a “demonstration” explosion or continuing the fight with an invasion of the Japanese homeland was the better next step.

As the topic will again be raised this week, I believe history provides an important perspective on this  decision. And insight as to how  we justify decisions now.

Two Post WW II Events

There were two WW II  related events that occurred when  while I was in the Navy on a ship homeported in Yokosuka, Japan.

The first was the return of the Okinawa islands to Japanese control via a treaty signed  in June 1971.  Return of this part of the Japanese territory was very emotional and deeply meaningful to the country.  Today Russia has failed to return the northern islands of Hokkaido they occupied at the war’s end.  It has left a deep emotional scar on the country’s  national pride.

The second was the surrender of the last Japanese soldier from WW II .   I remember the Japanese newspaper and TV accounts of this March 1974 event.  Here is  how the BBC described the event:

Lieutenant Onoda finally handed over his sword on March 9th 1974. He had held out in the Philippine jungle for 29 years. In interviews and writings after his return to Japan, Lt Onoda said he had been unable to accept that Japan had capitulated.

To many outsiders, Onoda looked like a fanatic. But in imperial Japan his actions were perfectly logical. Onoda had sworn never to surrender, to die for the emperor. He believed the rest of his countrymen, and women, would do the same.

Japan’s Internal Divide on WW II Surrender

Recognizing the Japanese strong allegiance to their homeland and their loyalty to the Emperor  exemplified by Lt. Onoda (who died in 2014), one can understand how difficult the decision to end the war was for Japan’s leaders.

The  internal political debate was intense. Whether Japan should accept  unconditional surrender or continue to fight is  reported in historian Martin  Gilbert’s book The Second World War.

At the very moment when the Nagasaki bomb exploded, the Japanese Supreme War Direction Council was meeting in Tokyo.  News of the bomb led to a renewed discussion as to whether Japan should accept unconditional surrender.  

The Council was evenly divided; three generals were for surrender, three for continuing the war.  The Foreign Minister, Shigenori Togo, cast his vote for surrender, as did the Prime Minister, Admiral Suzuki.  But the Minister of War, General Anami, was emphatic that there should be no surrender.  “It is far too early to say that the war is lost,” he told his colleagues, and he added:  “That we will inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan is certain, and is by no means impossible that we may be able to reverse the situation in our favour, pulling victory out of defeat.  Furthermore, our Army will not submit to demobilization.  And since they know they are not permitted to surrender, since they know that a fighting man who surrenders is liable to extremely heavy punishment, there is really no alternative for us but to continue the war.”  

The impasse was complete; but Togo and Suzuki were determined to end the war at once, and, in a secret meeting with Hirohito, prevailed upon him to summon a further meeting of the Supreme War Direction Council, and to preside over it himself.

The meeting took place shortly after midnight, in the Emperor’s underground bomb shelter.  First Suzuki read out the Potsdam Declaration.  Then, Togo urged its acceptance, provided that the position of the Emperor and the throne could be respected.  Suzuki supported Togo, General Anami opposed him.  For nearly two hours the discussion continued.  Then Hirohito spoke.  “Continuing the war,” he said, “can only result in the annihilation of the Japanese people and a prolongation of the suffering of all humanity.  It seems obvious that the nation is no longer able to wage war, and its ability to defend its own shores is doubtful.”

The time had come, Hirohito told the council, “to bear the unbearable”.  He therefore gave his sanction to Togo’s proposal that Japan should accept unconditional surrender.  The message to that effect, a formal acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, was sent out from Tokyo, early on August 10, to the Japanese ambassadors in Switzerland and Sweden, for transmission to the Allies.

Is History Inevitable?

When an historical event is done, the outcome can seem almost inevitable.  In the use of the atomic bombs, there is an ongoing issue with the counter-factual argument that the US not have used the atomic weapons.

I believe the record of the internal political divisions and subsequent events such as the two above, suggest that this option was necessary.  That is not to dismiss the concerns about ever using atomic weapons again nor continue to learn from the aftermath.

I believe this event involved sober discussion and conflicting points of view by both the US and Japan’s leadership.  That is the point to remember today.  Few situations are without options, sometimes better ones, but not necessarily easier.

One of the most important questions any leader can ask in a crisis is what are my options? To describe choices by leaders as inevitable or dictated  by circumstance, takes away the agency and responsibility of those involved.   This is especially true when  the welfare of the whole is overridden by the self-interest of the few.

This acceptance of unalterable fate is a temptation the cooperative democratic system was designed to prevent.  But it hasn’t always worked that way.  Why?

What Do Your Employees Have in Their Wallets?

Which employee benefits are most important  to retaining a stable,  experienced work force?  In the comment below, one CEO reports on his conversations with long-serving employees on their 5-year anniversary dates.

I would note there are many elements to creating a dedicated employee culture and team spirit.  But this benefit seemed to resonate in this credit union.

A CEO’s Analysis of the Importance of a Specific Benefit Plan

I often ask about what has motivated employees to stay with our credit union on their 5. 10. 15. and 20 year anniversaries.

Our 401(k) is usually at or near the top of their reasons. 

Data show we are exceeding the performance of similar-sized credit unions in nearly every measurement:

Contribution Rate: 19% – Percentage of annual salary between both employer and employee contributions.  Peer 12%

Participation Rate: 91% – Percentage of employees that are participating in the plan. Peer85%

On-Target for Income Replacement: 80% – Percentage of employees that are estimated to “replace” 80% of their income with their 401(k) investments. Peers 56%

Investment Mix. 87% – Percentage of employees that are invested at a risk level commensurate with their age | Peers 87%

These employees practice smart financial planning for tomorrow.  How does your retirement plan participation compare?