From a philosopher:
As a species, we can’t choose whether we worship — it’s built into us. However, we can choose what we worship.
Purpose and worship-two sides of the same coin.
A Former Fed Regulator On Reasons for SVB Failure
A segment from the March 14, Marketplace daily report on NPR follows. The interviewer is host Kai Ryssdal and the guest commentator is Daniel Tarullo who teaches at Harvard Law School.
Between 2009 and 2017, Tarullo was on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; specifically, he served as oversight governor for the supervision and regulation committee.
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) analysts are looking for situations where there are balance sheet or business model parallels that could lead to more bank failures. Tarullo asserts that management will always be first in line when blame is assessed.
However that is not the full story. He believes the proximate cause is closer to home–a regulator with a light touch.
I believe his last comment highlighted below describes NCUA’s approach to supervision. How else do you explain a credit union CEO and Chair giving themselves a $10 million fund under their sole control or $1.0 million dollar credit union CEO bonus upon merger, among other abuses?
Interview Excerpts:
Ryssdal: All right, so look, that’s why we got you on the phone. You ran, among other things you did at the Fed, the committee on supervision and regulation. And I am not the first person to ask, nor will I be the first person to ask, where were the regulators? Why did this come out of the blue?
Tarullo: That’s a huge question, isn’t it? There are two places to look: One is to supervision and the other is to regulation. Now, of course, we’re stipulating that there’s a management failure, but I think everybody would agree with that. So in terms of the government, the debate publicly has been, “Gee, were the 2018-2019 changes in the [Dodd-Frank] law and Fed regulations respectively to blame?” And, as I think you know, I was opposed to both the [rollback of the] law and the changes in the regulations.
But I don’t think there’s that direct of a connection between those specific changes and Silicon Valley. And so what that tells us is the failure was in the oversight by supervisors — people who were supposed to be watching whether things like the proportion of uninsured deposits was creating some unusual risks for that particular bank.
Ryssdal: That’s not terribly reassuring, I gotta tell you.
Tarullo: No, it’s not. And I think that the review that the Fed has launched — and it’s significant that it’s headed by the vice chair for supervision, Michael Barr, who is, you know, relatively new — I think the significance of having him run that rather than staff is precisely because they want to find out where the supervisory failures lay. Were they with the specific team that had responsibility for Silicon Valley? Or were the failures more widespread in the sense that Washington was providing kind of a light touch supervisory direction to them?
Ryssdal: What do you think?
Tarullo: I suspect that it’s a combination of the two. But given the signals that the Fed was sending, you know, in the last several years, I believe that part of it is just the “don’t be too tight in your supervision, you need to find legal problems before you tell the banks to change what they were doing.”
The Wisdom of Elders
In talking with a retired CEO who still follows credit union events, I asked how his perspective had changed.
“I don’t feel the intensity or nuances from the grind of the day to day. . . or the tactical lust for short term passions.”
Without an organization’s boundaries, the retiree tends to be more observant of general trends.
An example of this capability is John Tippets, who retired as CEO of American Airlines FCU in the first decade of this century. In retirement he continued to consult in strategic planning sessions and speak at credit union events. During the 2008/9 financial crisis he was the interim CEO for three years at the troubled North Island Credit Union, which he saved from a regulatory closure.
Before his credit union roles John spent about 25 years in the for-profit world of American Airlines. Most of that time he was an Officer with Sky Chefs, an American airport restaurant and concessions, and airline catering, subsidiary.
He has had multiple retirements and career involvements. He and his wife Bonnie have written a book, Hearts of Courage published in 2008, the story of his father’s survival from a plane crash in Alaska in 1943. The story behind the book is in this 2009 article.
There have been two CEO’s since John at the credit union. The airline sponsor has gone through much turmoil including bankruptcy, mergers and leadership changes. The relationship of the credit union and its sponsor has continued strong even through numerous board changes.
The one strategic change John made as CEO was to take advantage of the TIP field of membership option. This permitted the personnel of other employers, co-workers at the airports, to become members of AAFCU. Airports in many ways became the credit union’s communities.
Speaking on Leadership
A favorite topic for John is his Principles of Leadership which he developed into a 50 slide presentation to the Aerospace conference in 2018.
The speech summarized his multiple professional and personal interests in a diagram similar to the UCLA basketball coach John Wooden’s nine principles of leadership. Here is John’s organizational template using a similar framework for credit unions.
The slides develop each of the nine points using examples from his numerous life experiences. The speech summarizes his approach to leadership. It also characterizes how he sees meaning in his multiple organizational and personal responsibilities.
The Underutilized Resource
John is now working on a book about his 25 years in credit unions. His activities are just one of multiple examples of credit union leaders who have stepped down but continue to follow credit union events. For many, these professional years are the most satisfying responsibility they have had.
Look around. There are examples of professional experiences and resources in every community, often like John, willing to provide perspective and an occasional assist. They see the world differently, often with more clarity than incumbents might assume.
And sometimes they are even delightful guests for the board, employees and members to hear from when those occasions arise.
In his book, John talks about his father’s recounting his story to youth leaders. Joseph would encourage them to keep teaching the lessons, because even though they might not seem to care, “kids are hearing and someday they may really, really appreciate what they learned.”
Life stories are not just for kids. For the past is never past, but always present.
Two Thoughts from Other Writers
Part of the job—arguably the job—of good journalism is to expose that brokenness. It’s to shine a light in the dark places.
However by focusing so much on what isn’t working, we sometimes forget what is.
If ours is an era of building and rebuilding, what things are worth saving? What things are worth elevating? What things are worth remembering?
And:
America won’t be saved by politicians
or money
or technology
or celebrities.
It can only be saved across the land by “character.”
Respecting Cooperative Owners: The One Thing Essential
This past week’s financial runs show how fragile consumer confidence can be.
A critical distinction in credit union design is democratic ownership-one member one vote.
One of the challenges however is that it is easy to treat owners only as customers. The fact is that many “owners” today are ordinary consumers attracted by a competitive rate or other marketing message. In some cases, the customer is just an indirect loan borrower who had minimal voice in the selection of where the loan was made.
There is a difference between customers and owners in a financial institution.
Customers do not vote for directors at the annual meeting;
Customers do not vote on merger proposals for their institution;
Customers do not have a residual interest in the reserves of their firm.
Ownership is traditionally honored in other communications such as members’ founding stories or recognizing those who have played special roles in the credit union or cooperative system.
The One Thing Essential
Transparency is one critical leadership characteristic that acknowledges the owner’s role.
Without full, continuous and open communications, the default is to treat owners as customers. That unfortunately is the attitude of many in positions of leadership today.
Most importantly lack of transparency on specific credit union commitments means the owners have little or no basis for their responsibility of electing directors.
A Regulatory Shortcoming
An example is from last week’s subordinated debt rule approved by NCUA. Every party to the transaction is provided full information: Senior management/boards, the brokers, the consultant, NCUA, and most importantly the individuals and entities (including other credit unions) that buy the debt.
Debt issuance of $100 and $200 million have been completed in the past 12 months. The only persons not provided the details of these events are the owners. It is their loyalty that is the basis for issuing these borrowings that can now extend as far as 30 years.
Without transparency, there is no possibility of accountability. The owners are removed from any role in governance. NCUA presumes its in loco parentis role if something doesn’t go according to plan-a distinct prospect with terms of 10, 20 and now 30 years.
Senior Management and Board Compensation
Only state-chartered credit unions are required to file IRS form 990 which discloses senior management and board compensation, political donations and other activities such as grants for all non profits.
These disclosures are essential for owners to know the incentives and circumstances board and management have agreed to in leading the credit union.
Compensation consultants today are plentiful with four part plans and multiple ways to structure payments now or later. There are increasing references to a “change of control” clause which would trigger executive payouts no matter other merger bonus and benefits negotiated by the CEO.
Without compensation transparency there can be no accountability. State charters have disclosed this for decades. The same logic applies to federal charters. This information is an important step in owner oversight, even consumer protection.
The Place and Time to Start Showing Trust in Owners
In the months ahead, most credit unions will hold their annual meetings-in person and virtual. In preparation the annual audit will be available, a Chairman’s report prepared and other required business conducted including election of directors.
Some meetings will include updates on projects such as a new building or branch expansion, a report by a foundation or community activity. Others will include an educational presentation, an outside speaker and even a meal.
The annual meeting is a primary opportunity for leadership to engage with owners in open and full conversations.
It is especially important in light of recent examples about the resilience of regional and smaller banks. Confidence in an institution is based on trust. Trust is not created in a day or by a special press release about a firm’s financial standing. It is a relationship founded on open communication as both customers and owners over years.
Nothing could be more important this year than showing coop owners that the CEO and board deserve their trust by being fully transparent with facts and open to the members’ questions and points of view.
That is how free markets are supposed to function in a competitive economy. That is how democracy is supposed to work.
When Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Last Friday I received the following email from a credit union’s CFO:
“My CEO and I were discussing the new offering from the Feds, the Bank Term Funding Program (BFTP). We have outstanding borrowings due over the next few months. Liquidity is still tight. I am considering utilizing this program as the current rate offered is almost 65BPs less than the FHLB 1-year term.
“I sat in on an “Ask the Feds” session on Wednesday to learn more about the program. I’m curious as to your thoughts on utilizing this source of funding for Credit Unions. Do you know of any CUs that have received any funding?
“Also, I’d love to hear what you think as far as there not being any negative stigma attached to institutions that do receive funding from this source. Borrowing from the FRB is usually viewed negatively as it is seen as the “lender of last resort.” During the webinar, the speakers assured everyone this would not be the case with this program.”
The follow query was posted by a credit union member on LinkedIn early last week:
I am thinking of transferring all my money. To my 2 credit unions !!! Why is it more secure??
Latest Actions Taken
The following are reports by the Fed and the FHLB system to respond to the financial firms’ liquidity needs. From a Reuters report on the FHLB system on March 13, 2023:
U.S. Federal Home Loan Banks beefed up their lending war chests on Monday to provide more liquidity to banks amid continued higher-than-usual demand for funds as the fallout from the collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank reverberates through medium- and smaller-size financial institutions.
The FHL Bank system raised $88.73 billion by selling short-term notes with maturities from three months to one year on Monday afternoon, according to Informa Global Markets, a provider of syndicated bond data. The offering was raised from an initial $64 billion due to high demand.
Bloomberg on the Fed’s lending ;program as of March 16, 2023:
Banks borrowed heavily over the last week from two Fed backstop facilities. Data published by the central bank showed $152.85 billion in borrowing from the discount window—the traditional liquidity backstop for banks—in the week ended March 15. It was a record high and a staggering increase from the $4.58 billion borrowed the previous week. The prior all-time high? It was $111 billion during the 2008 financial crisis.
“Talking Points”
From press releases by CUNA’s CEO Jim Nussle: “Credit union deposits are safe, secure and insured.” A March 17, CUNA headline: “Credit unions are a safe harbor.”
Chairman Harper ‘s words at NCUA’s Thursday. March 16, monthly board meeting:
“Consumers can remain confident that their hard-earned deposits at federally insured credit unions are safe, just as they always have been, and that the NCUA will continue to act expeditiously, when needed, to preserve the stability of the credit union system.”
Vice Chair Hauptman offered no liquidity initiatives. Rather he lists actions NCUA has taken he believes relevant to the current situation. (emphasis added)
“Even though there’s no analogy to the Silicon Valley Bank and credit union system, previous boards and this board have been urging credit unions to ensure they have appropriate sources of emergency liquidity.
“At the same time, we have urged Congress to strengthen the Central Liquidity Facility, the CLF, by allowing corporates to act as agents for subsets of members. When interest rates started rising, we published guidance on NCUA’s NEV, Net Economic Value methodology – that guidance clarified that credit union management must have an appropriate plan for managing interest rate risk.
“I’ll also note, a little while back, we encouraged the use of interest rate derivatives for exactly situations like this. The events of this past week underscore exactly why we were so concerned about interest rate risk. And this board is very aware that it is fairly unprecedented the rate-hiking cycle we’ve been in. We know it’s not easy to manage, but that is what credit union management is paid to do.”
“I’m grateful for the hard work by credit unions and NCUA to ensure confidence and a safe and sound system. I know springtime is often annual membership meeting season for a lot of credit unions. No doubt, some members will have questions. I hope you credit unions out there will use this opportunity to educate members not only on your credit union, but the credit union difference.” (end excerpt)
His message is clearly a preemptive defense of the regulator’s accountability. “NCUA did all we could. If there is a problem in a credit union, it is not on us.”
Credit unions might wish the NCUA board in is quarterly updates had been more diligent in monitoring the NCUSIF’s interest rate risk. Or that the CLF had been made “shovel ready” versus asking for more resources and authority when existing ones had not been used since 2009. For that’s what the NCUA Board is paid to do.
When Action Counts
The two federal “agencies” that credit unions are using (after the corporates) are the FHLB and the Federal Reserve.
The CLF is missing in action , and silent, even though it has the same “protracted lending authority” as does the Federal Reserve.
This is not a credit issue. In each bank failure to date no one has pointed to an absence of capital compliance. There have been other regulatory shortcomings mentioned, but not capital. As one observer noted: The main takeaway is capital is not king; it’s a court jester. Confidence is king. Runs start from lack of confidence, and no amount of capital is enough.
The foundation for system stability is action not words. Confidence comes from seeing those with responsibility being proactive versus reactive; public versus silent; and fact-based versus rhetorical reaffirmations.
CLF Missing In Action
Credit unions and their members are addressing similar concerns about their ability to access funds.
What’s going on at the CLF? Where is the initiative shown by both the FHLB system and Fed with actions now to meet liquidity needs? Is the CLF capable of providing same, or even next day, liquidity?
This is the moment to show that the CLF can be relevant, responsive and a vital factor in coop resilience. If the NCUA and credit unions fail to join together in this moment, this week, then why have a CLF at all?
PS: If a credit union can share their experience borrowing from the FED and provide answers to the CFO’s questions above, please post in the comment section. Thank you.
An Irish Weekend and Remembrance
As Bucky Sebastian reminded me many times about this past weekend, “Everyone’s Irish.” St. Patricks Day comes in the middle of Lent because an Irishman could not go for forty days without a drink.
At least that’s one theory.
So I got out my best Irish hat and tried out his thesis with a dark lager and two helpings of shepherd’s pie. There was even a vegan option. Here’s the outcome.
Ed Callahan Remembered
Which reminds us of the great Irishman who believed in his deepest being, the potential for credit unions. This is Jim Blaine’s, March 17, 2016 portrait of Ed.
“Always suspected that the problem with Ed Callahan was that as a youth he was beaten too often by Nuns in parochial school or, perhaps, not beaten enough. Well, whatever, either way the Nuns left their mark – an indomitable spirit!
Ed Callahan was Irish – brash, pugnacious, loud, hard drinking, fun loving – alive! But why be redundant? I said he was Irish!
For over a quarter of a century, we all watched and observed as Ed Callahan created shock waves in the credit union world. No one was neutral about Ed Callahan. His friends were fiercely loyal, his enemies equally committed. Ed inspired many and angered quite a few. Ed had style; he had presence. With Ed, you weren’t allowed to make contact without becoming involved, excited, immersed, engaged.
At Marquette, Ed must have played football in the same way he played life – without a helmet. You had no doubt that Ed Callahan always played for keeps. He had no intentions of losing, that was not one of the options. Ed was very straight-forward; your choices were always clear. The mission was defined; and, there was only one direct path to the goal. That path was either with you, around you, over you, under you, or through you; you could step aside or get on board. It was your choice; but your choice never changed the mission, nor the path, nor the goal.
Some said that Ed was a visionary…
… they were wrong. Ed Callahan was a revolutionary. Visionaries talk about change, revolutionaries take you there. Ed led from the front – a leader of conviction, rather than convenience; principles above posture – courageous. Revolutionaries, by definition, create problems; overturn apple carts; rebuke the status quo. That happened at NCUA. Appointed by President Reagan, Ed arrived at NCUA in the midst of turmoil. Ed defined the mission; he reformed and remolded the Agency. He taught a regulatory agency how to stop working to prevent the last crisis. He explained that a coach never executes a play and that on Monday morning it’s never hard to see what went wrong – but it is rarely relevant. Teacher, coach, lessons in life; hopefully well learned, hopefully still remembered.
But let me celebrate the essence of the man – that indomitable spirit – one last time, for those who never had the opportunity; for those who still have doubts; for those who never fully understood. One of Ed’s harshest critics, noted with much wryness, that even in death Ed “couldn’t get it right”. Why, I asked? “Because Callahan died on March 18th instead of on the 17th, his beloved St. Patrick’s Day.” You know this type of critic – cynical, smug, self-assured without much basis, not really worth the effort, but…
Just for the record, I would simply like to point out one final time that – first and foremost – Ed Callahan was a fully-fledged, fully-flagrant Irishman – body and soul! And, no self-respecting Irishman would ever celebrate the end of St. Patrick’s Day until the last bell at the pub had rung. That would have meant that Ed Callahan’s “last call” would have come sometime after 4:00 am – on the morning of the 18th. Style, presence, courage – true to the last! A shamrock of joyful vigor and purpose!
And one last thought… in the final analysis you can say many things about a great man’s life… some men are admired, some are respected, some are envied, some are feared… and countless other adjectives and accolades. But, in the final analysis, the most important thing you can say about a great man is… he will be missed. ”
And, Ed Callahan will be missed…
THE Credit Union Lesson from SVB and Regulation
In a news conference following the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, President Kennedy remarked: “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan. “
The SVB’s failure proves this adage untrue. The press and numerous pundits have already assigned multiple parentage: the CEO and management, the Fed’s rapid rate increases, regulatory and examination shortcomings, the external auditor’s clean opinion, the Silicon Valley customers $40 billion twitter run, Trump’s deregulation in 2018 and the Biden administration DEI policy objectives.
When everyone and everything is to blame, then no one is accountable. Just another “black swan” event. With more investigations/hearings to come, each new revelation will just add to the piles of condemnations. No lessons taken away. More regulations of course, for this is the default response whenever the barn door is left open.
A Spotlight on One Factor
From all these commentaries, I want to highlight one aspect that contributed to overlooking this risky situation. This factor has just become a part of the credit union regulatory eco-system.
In responding to my analysis earlier this week, Doug Fecher, the retired CEO of Wright-Patt Credit Union in Ohio, commented:
This situation makes me wonder if NCUA’s new “RBC” standards would have flagged the risks to SVB’s balance sheet. From what I can tell, much (most) of SVB’s investments were in “risk-free” treasury bonds and high quality agency securities, which in NCUA’s RBC formula would have earned some of the lowest risk multipliers.
To me it is another example of the folly of RBC-style risk management regimes … and why NCUA was wrongheaded in its pursuit of RBC.
This point of view is not limited to Doug’s observation.
During his time as Vice Chair of the FDIC, Thomas Hoenig challenged the agency’s reliance on risk-based capital requirements. He questioned both the theory and practice, pointing to the lending distortions which contributed to banking losses during the Great Recession.
He wrote about the SVB failure in this commentary:
The regulator apparently relied on the bank’s risk-weighted capital standard for judging SVB’s balance sheet strength. Under the risk weighted system government and government guaranteed securities are not counted as part of the balance sheet for calculating capital to “risk-weighted” assets.
This allowed the bank to report a ratio of around 16%, giving the appearance of strongly capitalized bank. However, this calculation failed to account for interest rate risk in its securities portfolio or the risk of having a highly concentrated balance sheet. It misled the public, and apparently the regulators.
In contrast, if the regulator had focused on SVB’s ratio of equity capital-to-total assets, including government securities, the ratio falls to near 8 percent; and if they had calculated the ratio as tangible capital-to-assets (removing intangibles and certain unbooked loses from capital) the ratio would have fallen to near 5%.
What this would have disclosed to the world is that the bank’s assets could not lose 16% of their value before insolvency but only 5%, a stark contrast.
Had the regulator not relied on the misleading risk-weighted capital measure, it might have take actions sooner. A simple capital-to-asset ratio, tells the regulator and public in simple, realistic terms how much a money a bank can lose before becoming insolvent. The regulatory authorities need to stop pretending that their complex and confusing capital models work; they don’t.
RBC and Credit Unions: A First Birthday
RBC became the surrogate capital ratio for all credit unions with assets greater than $500 million one year ago on January 1, 2022.
Before this in a September of 2021 analysis, Why Risk Based Capital is Far Too Risky. Hoenig is quoted:
“A risk-based system inflates the role of regulators and denigrates the role of bank managers.
We may have inadvertently created a system that discourages the very loan growth we seek, and instead turned our financial system into one that rewards itself more than it supports economic activity.”
RBC and Asset Bubbles
Shortly after the critique of regulatory incentives induced by risk weighted assets, in Asset Bubbles and Credit Unions (JANUARY 10, 2022) the consequences from potential Fed tightening were noted:
When funding looks inexpensive and asset values stable or rising, what could go wrong?
The short answer is that the Fed’s inflation response will disrupt all asset valuations and their expected returns.
The distorted results caused by RBC was presented in Credit Unions & Risk Based Capital (RBC): A Preliminary Analysis in February of this year. Among the findings:
The 304 credit unions who adopted RBC, manage $822.7 billion in assets. But the risk weighted assets total only $479 billion. That 58% ratio is the NCUA’s discounting of total assets total by assigning relative risk weights. and,
One credit union with assets between five and ten billion dollars, reports standard net worth of 12.5% and an RBC ratio of 48.3%.
This February analysis using June 2022 data of RBC credit unions showed that:
250 of these 308 credit unions reported unrealized declines in the market value of investments that exceeded 25% of net worth. Four credit unions reported a decline greater than 50% of capital. This was before the five additional Federal Reserve’s rate increases through the end of the year.
RBC’s primary focus is credit risk, the loss of value from principal losses from loans or other assets. Balance sheet duration mismatch is not captured as are other common management errors: concentration in either product or market focus, limited or no diversification of product or market, or just simple operational mismanagement.
These common challenges become amplified by insufficiently considered non-organic growth forays such as third party loan purchases or originations. Whole bank acquisitions are an example of such risks often accompanied (disguised?} by growing amounts of the balance sheet’s intangible asset, goodwill.
The RBC proxy indicator for safety and soundness creates a distorted impression of real institutional risks. Managers learn to game the system so that boards, members, and regulators fail to understand the institution’s total financial situation.
And when along comes a change in underlying assumptions, like the Fed’s rate increases, the previously unrecognized vulnerabilities quickly appear.
RBC creates for some institutions a theoretical capital ratio that is nothing more than a “regulatory house of cards.” SVB will not be the last example.
As Doug Fecher recommended in his 2016 comment letter on the proposed rule, “RBC should be a tool, not a rule.”
To his credit, Kennedy learned from the Bay of Pigs misjudgments when the Cuban missile crisis occurred in 1962.
An “Important Message From Our President and CEO”
Immediately following Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) failure, credit unions and banks sent messages to their members or customers. They affirmed that their institutions were safe. It was also common to point out that that they did not have SVB’s business model or its exposures.
Effective communication is an art, especially in a crisis. The audience is used to receiving marketing promotions. This situation is very different from those routine messages.
This special contact should be authentic (even personal), drafted for the event, and include relevant facts for the specific circumstances.
The following are examples from two CEO’s, one from a bank and the other a credit union. Following each is a response from the audience.
March 13, 2023
Dear Customers and Friends of VeraBank, (posted on the bank’s web site’s landing page)
I want to take this opportunity to address what is going on in the financial markets, regarding the orderly liquidation of Silvergate Capital Bank, the closures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, and how it relates to VeraBank.
It understandably creates worry any time there is a failure in our industry. Let me reassure you, these banks are nothing like VeraBank, and we have no exposure to the issues leading to those niche banks’ downfall.
Both Silvergate and Signature Bank focused heavily on volatile crypto industry, and Silicon Valley Bank was the largest bank serving start-up technology businesses and venture capital firms involved in that industry. These banks did not practice the prudent diversification of revenue and risk, unlike VeraBank and the great majority of community banks in this country. For instance, at the close of 2022, 97% of Silicon Valley Bank’s $175 billion in deposits were uninsured, and they only had $12.5 billion in cash on hand to cover those deposits. As of closing this past Friday, only 30% of VeraBank’s deposits are uninsured, and we have over $928 million in cash on hand or 87% of our uninsured deposits in cash on hand to cover any customer liquidity needs. I can assure you that is a very high level for our industry.
In other words, where Silicon Valley had only 7.1% of their uninsured deposits covered by cash on hand, VeraBank has 87% covered. We also have liquidity sources that could fairly easily increase our liquidity by close to twice the amount we have now. At VeraBank, we have always understood the importance of good liquidity and risk management. VeraBank is funded with stable local deposits from the communities in which we do business and not the kind of “hot” and unreliable money that funded the three institutions that are now failing.
VeraBank has been through many good and bad economic times, and we continue to operate with the same conservative philosophies that have served us well for over 93 years.
Most recently we went through the Great Recession of 2008-09, the ups and downs of the oil and gas markets of the last 15 years, and a global pandemic, and we have not missed a beat.
Actually, it has been just the opposite at VeraBank: we have thrived because we understood the importance of risk management. We understand that we serve each of you and do not dare put your money at undue risk.
Please do not confuse VeraBank with these other banks and others you may hear about in the weeks to come. I am very confident in our bank and how we protect our customers. Please reach out and talk with any of my 500+ colleagues if you have any concerns at all. Let me provide you with my cell number, 903-649-8790, so you can feel free to text or call me directly if you would like to talk about these issues.
Thanks for your continued support,
Brad Tidwell
The response: according to an evening business news report, Tidwell received over 700 calls spending most of his day on the phone.
VeraBank was established in 1930 at the height of the Great Depression, is a privately-owned community bank that serves East and Central Texas with its network of 38 conveniently located branches in East and Central Texas and has $3.5 billion in assets.
A CredIt Union CEO’s Email to Members
SAFE AND SECURE SINCE 1933
|
|
A Member Responds:
Ms. Bland,
Suggestion: If you are going to send out an email blast starting with “I’m” as in “I’m pleased to report…” make sure that your Member/Owners (?) can contact you personally (and not have to guess at an email address because you may be too busy to respond to us plebeians…).
As a credit union that is supposedly member owned, WE (your members) should have an open line of communication with transparent abilities to see how our credit union is run on a daily basis.
Again, this includes open lines of communication to ANYONE in our credit union, including a directory of staff. As a member that is hearing impaired, a telephone is not a particularly viable option but email certainly is. . .
This is the first email that I have received concerning the operations of G1 since becoming a member over a year ago. There should be email blasts to indicate G1 annual reports as well as opportunities for election to the board of directors…
This email is meant to be a frank/direct/open suggestion for improvement of member communications with the actual member/owners of G1.
Thank you,
A Comment
Each reader or CEO can choose which approach best fits their style.
As the credit union member suggests, this kind of member contact should be more frequent. It would include other items that the owners (not customers) would find useful or relevant, not just when a special event occurs. For most art generally improves with practice.
Credit Unions and “Proper” FinTech Partnerships
Ancin Cooley , founder and principal of Synergy Credit Union Consulting, has just released a six minute video addressing a key strategic question: How to assess a Fintech business “partnership?”
In the video he uses an analogy that illustrates the difference between a symbiotic and a potentially parasitic relationship. You can watch it here.
I believe his illustration also relates to other forms of third-party business arrangements. For example, indirect auto lending is an important source of auto loan volume for many credit unions. The challenge is who is the credit union’s customer? The dealership or the borrowing car buyer? Can it be both?
Take a look. Note his observation that not all Fintech relationships are the same.
(https://youtu.be/pyDm7oykBYE)