Category: Co-ops in Capitalism

Posted on

Several Explanations for Credit Union Mergers

While there are almost daily familiar rhetorical press releases  announcing new merger intentions, actual causal motivations are rarely plainly stated.

Descriptions from other areas of economic activity  provides some of the reasons for this ever increasing aspect of cooperative evolution.

CEO’s love unjust gain because money is their highest trust.

There’s nothing wrong with actively working (read: contributing actual value to others) and making a good living from it, but it’s wrong to turn a profit off the time, talent, effort, and creativity of others simply because you wield a capital advantage over them.

Where nothing is forbidden, nothing is required.

Executives are absolutely at a loss of what might happen if they stopped exploiting a gain off of others.

And the ultimate outcome for the member owners:

The chasm between credit union’s design and individual member benefit gets wider and wider.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

From the Field: Credit Unions Empowering Members and Communities

A critical distinction of the cooperative model is its local advantage.  News commentators assert “all politics is local.”  Military leaders call this capacity “boots on the ground.”  Credit unions described this organizing concept as their field of membership.

When events and institutions affect where and how one lives, that makes their impact personal for individuals.  The capability of credit unions to be seen as a long standing participant of the community they serve, creates generations of loyalty. And in the examples below, superior performance.

Member Feedback at Day Air Credit Union, Dayton Ohio

As part of the net promoter score process, the credit union invites member comments on their experience.  Here are two member notes the CEO recently shared with his team:

Reenetry

1.Day Air Credit Union met me where I was in my walk after being a returning citizen through the Montgomery County reentry community. I was full of fear and didn’t know anything about handling finances or money or getting to where I needed to be in order to be able to get loans and start a business.

Day Air Credit Union along with several individuals from the Montgomery County reentry community helped me succeed in my walk and in my business. Thank you so very much.

Don’t Sell Out

2.You guys help me through a situation, that even though you knew how I got there, you knew it wasn’t my fault (100% my fault) … You guys knew it was technically fraud against me. You did not have to help me, but you did, so that deserves a 10 in my book.

It shows the character of the people in your organization. You guys really are there for your members, it’s kind of like what families and friends are supposed to be, no judgment just being there when someone needs them to be and just doing the right thing. even if that right thing is to just be there to listen about someone’s life that has turned into a freaking dumpster fire… really you guys have been great. You’ve got a customer for life. Unless you sellout; other than that, a 10 in my book.

Through August 2024, the $847 million Day Air reports an ROA of 1.47%, share growth of 7.54%, net worth of 13% and an operating expense/asset ratio of 2.43%.

Creating a Statewide Collection Effort for Food Banks

The following is a release from First Harvest  describing a New Jersey wide effort in which  credit unions will collect canned food donations for local food banks.  This ad hoc network effort relies on the dozens of local branches as drop off and collection centers.   Another example of the advantage of a local presence and personal interaction with members.

First Harvest Credit Union, Affinity Federal Credit Union, and EdiFi Credit Union have come together to launch the New Jersey Credit Unions Food Cooperative and have engaged 27 New Jersey credit unions to participate in the initiative and help address the growing hunger crisis in New Jersey.

All participating credit unions and their select branches will serve as collection locations, allowing for broader geographic coverage across New Jersey, which will support dozens of food pantries and organizations throughout the state.

The program runs from October 1 through November

To donate, credit union members and residents throughout New Jersey can find a participating credit union listed below, and its nearest branch to drop off non-perishable food items. Each credit union branch will directly support a food pantry or organization within the community it serves. 

First Harvest President & CEO Mike Dinneen notes: “As credit unions, we are always stronger when we partner together. New Jersey has over 130 credit unions, serving a wide variety of rural, urban and suburban communities. One thing that is consistent is the food and affordability crisis that is impacting all of our residents.

Credit unions have an inherent mission and proven ability to take the reins when there is a need to help those who are underserved or in need, and I am proud to stand with these amazing New Jersey credit union leaders and implement this important member-driven mission.”

 The twenty-seven participating credit unions are then listed.  Local matters. That is how most of us ground our lives and cooperate with others in community.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Voting Closes Tomorrow in Critical North Carolina Election

On Tuesday Oct 1, remote virtual voting for SECU’s (NC) 2.8 million members’ annual director’s election will end.  Mail ballots must be postmarked by then, but in-person votes can still be cast at the Annual Meeting on October 8th in Greensboro.

I summarized several issues between the two slates of four candidates a week ago.  For I believe the significance of this unique event extends far beyond SECU’s members, North Carolina and into the entire credit union system.

Member-owner voting on anything, except a credit union’s demise via merger, is extraordinarily rare. This example of the member franchise being conducted  demonstrates that elections in large credit unions are feasible.

Members now have a say via voting about the credit union’s future.  It challenges the current routine practice of self-perpetuating board oversight with no member-owner input.  This latter approach is, unfortunately,  the process followed by most credit union at the moment.

Campaign Updates

Facebook posts with social media ads are being run by both sides.   The four member nominated  SECUforALL site includes dozens upon dozens of member comments and videos.  It is updated daily.  For example, it now includes “links to local news outlets providing lists of trusted charities and relief organization accepting donations”  for North Carolina victims of hurricane Helene.

These members and many former employees have criticized the announced annual meeting rules which limit member participation and comments compared with prior practice.   Their posts also pointed out that the credit union is paying for the incumbents slate’s ads on social media.

I believe both sides would agree with Chairman Moon’s video election comment that  “The power of your vote cannot be overstated. Let your voice be heard.”  That’s why this election is about more than choosing between two slates of candidates.  It illustrates what the member-owners’ role in a credit union is supposed to be.

Two Contrasting Views of Credit Union Leadership

Cooperative design inverts the traditional structure of financial services leadership.   In long-established and certainly modern day financial firms, power is concentrated, either in the hands of those at the top or those who contribute the most capital (ownership stake).

In credit unions power flows up from the bottom, from the member-owners.  This was the intent of the democratic one-person-one vote election for directors at the required annual meeting.

This grass roots, member-driven founding became so successful, credit unions began hiring full time managers.  Growth and expansion accelerated after deregulation.  Successive leaders grew increasingly distant from their credit union’s founding generations and motivations.

This ever widening scope of operations separated management and  boards from routine interaction with members. Today’s leadership teams who benefit from the legacy of hundreds of millions in assets, believe it is now their sole prerogative  to  configure the organization apart from any prior commitments—even to the point of merger and charter dissolution.

The boards of large credit unions have become insulated, like a private group who amplify and reinforce the instincts of this self-selected few.  It is their authority to alone  shape the future. The unique coop design is now turned upside down mirroring the current structure of for-profit financial organizations.  Here is a comment from another credit union’s member on the SECUforAll  site:

Recasting the Coop Model

Credit unions were created to  break from the traditional way financial services were practiced: for example, paying interest on share draft accounts; offering skip-a-pay and loan rebates; permitting cosigners as “collateral” for loan limits.   Or to use the biblical phrase, “overturning the tables of the money changers” providing consumer financial options.

As credit union’s market ambitions grew, the prevailing ethos became “to beat the competition, a credit had to become the competition.”  And their leadership and advice was increasingly drawn from that perspective, not from the legacy culture that built the system’s present financial standing.

SECU’s Election and the Stakeholders Watching

SECU’s election choice is between two visions of what a credit union is.  Most large credit union leaders believe the power of the organization rests at the top.  Success entails unfettered growth, seeking mergers and/or buying assets such as banks, and using all the tools of financial leverage such as subordinated debt, third party originations and borrowing, should shares fall short.

However, credit unions were founded on the principle that power was created by empowering others.   Credit union pioneers believed the wealth of an organization was measured by how much it was shared, not how much the firm accumulated. That the strength of a  coop was in trusted relationships, not superior financial ratios.  Member service and values is how to attract committed employees. not bonuses.

The outcome of this year’s vote will likely resonate far beyond Greensboro and North Carolina.  If ten thousand, a hundred thousand or even more members see their democratic ownership role more clearly, every SECU meeting going forward will have a more engaged participation.   And the credit union system will have an example of what modern day cooperative governance can be.

I will publish the link to the October 8 SECU Annual Meeting when it is available.

Posted on

When Credit Union Members, Regulators and the White House Were in Alignment

From the President to the Treasury Secretary (1936):

In the first years of implementing the  1934 Federal Credit Union Act, oversight of the emerging federal option was placed in the Farm Credit Administration.   The FCA’s publication, Cooperative Saving, was a quarterly sent to all credit unions about how to set up and run a credit union.  William Myers, the FCA’s administrator, wrote this statement in the July-August 1938 first issue.

Note the “Memorandum-The Basis of Credit Union Success” is addressed to all FCU members.  And his statement, “If anyone should ask for the reason for this success. . . I should refer them to you.”

Aligning NCUA with administration on  priorities is critical to legislative change, such Congress’s  1984 restructuring of the NCUSIF following cooperative principles. The White House’s Assistant to the President David Gergen, acknowledges NCUA’s role for “restraining excessive government spending.”

When members, regulators and the Administration’s priorities are aligned in support  of cooperatives, credit unions “will continue to flourish greatly as one of the hopeful and lasting institutions of American life.”  It has happened before.

 

Posted on

For Members’ Sake: Let’s Start Recognizing the Real  “Market” Value of a Credit Union

Today credit unions operate in two financial worlds.  One is the so called “free market.” This is where open competition, winner-take-all, buying and selling happens. Members/consumers make their buying decisions comparing options.  The winners are firms with superior value propositions including better products, service, convenience and sometimes marketing.

This is the market credit unions enter when buying banks or  investing in other firms (CUSO’s, Fintechs) to advance their credit union’s competitive position. Corporate transactions are marked by due diligence assisted by external experts, and financial projections with ROI’s and cash flow forecasts.  Often these deals are subject to close regulatory scrutiny in addition to buyer and seller’s close analysis.

Transactions in credit union’s “off market” financial  activity are not based on transparency, superior performance or even shareholder/owners best interest.  This is the “insiders game” of private deal making, self-enrichment and public misinformation and rhetoric to benefit the players’ personal agendas.

Today this is the world of credit union mergers.  It is increasingly  a cesspool of pretend member advantages disguising payoffs  to facilitate changes in control of sound long-serving institutions.

There is no owner payment or recognition as occurs in the “free market” transactions.  In fact these are totally “free” transfers  in which the continuing credit union is paid to take over the business.  The owner’s net worth is transferred intact to the acquirer. This is the complete opposite of an open market transaction.  It would never happen in a fully transparent actual market sale.

The Critical Issue

The critical question for the credit union system’s future is why aren’t members paid for their ownership interest when there is a change of control.  It happens some with market facing events, but never in mergers. Without any payments upon a charter’s dissolution, member-ownership is a fiction.

Credit unions do know how to value a financial institution, their own coops and other for profit firms.

Credit union  capacity and interest in buying other financial institutions, particularly banks is ever-increasing.   These all-cash purchase and assumptions totaled 16 in 2022, 11 in 2023 and at least 17 announced so far in 2024.

In most purchases, the transaction price ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 times book value.  Where the bank is publicly traded, the offers always exceed the last market quotation prior to the sale announcement. Here is an example.

The Most Recent Bank Purchase Announcement

Yesterday  the $9.2 billion ESL FCU announced the acquisition of the $401 million Generations bank (Nasdaq: GBNY).  Prior to the announcement GBNY’s one day high for the past year was $10.76.  Today, post announcement, it closed at $15.75 per share.

In the announcement the bank estimates the range of final cash payments for each share to be $18-$20.   From the joint press release:  “ESL Federal Credit Union will pay Generations $26.2 million in cash and Generations Bank will retain its equity at the effective time of the P&A Transaction.”

Generations Bancorp has 2,241,801 outstanding shares of common stock.  If $20 is the final disribution per share, then the bank owners will receive a total of $44.8 million, that is their equity and ESL’s $26.2 million payment.

We know there must be some pretty sharp financial analysts at ESL which is paying $26.2 million cash for an institution whose track record includes the following:

  1. The bank has lost money, every quarter, for the last three quarters.
  2. The bank has an efficiency ratio over 100%, every quarter, for the last three quarters.
  3. This means the bank lost money, before factoring in provision for loan loss expense.
  4. Since 2015, the bank has produced an ROA over 0.50% just once.
  5. It’s pretax ROA through 6/30 of this year is negative 0.90%.

How  Bank Purchases Should Inform Credit Union Owners

The example of credit unions paying cash in a bank P&A, effectively a liquidation, demonstrates credit union’s willingness to analyze market value and to pay up for performing financial assets.  In these deals, there is no charter acquired. just an operating business.

Moreover each of these transactions is reviewed and approved by at least three very interested parties:

  1. The owners who will ask is this price fair and a better option than not selling?
  2. The FDIC will examine for any residual risk to the bank fund.
  3. The NCUA will review for any safety and soundness implications and compliance with credit union regulations for acquired assets and FOM limits.

The point of this example, and almost 50 recent bank acquisitions is that credit union’s know how to value the potential future ROI of a financial institution’s assets.

So how might this skill apply to valuation of a credit union?  While there are not many recent examples, there is one thoroughly documented transaction.

The Nationwide FCU Sale to Nationwide Bank

In 2006 the sponsor of Nationwide FCU announced its intent to buy its credit union to accelerate its banking operations.   Founded in 1951, the single sponsor credit union was almost an extension of the insurance company. Almost all of its members were Nationwide employees, former employees or retirees and their families. The CU’s employees were all Nationwide Insurance employees and the CU performed very few of its administrative functions on its own.

The first question for the members was: “Will the 45,000 owners of the $564 million Nationwide FCU be offered enough money for their credit union?”

The credit union’s key numbers at December 2006, right after the vote were:  Assets $564.1 million;  Loans  $  418.3 million;  Net Worth $61.5 million (12.7%); shares $489.3 million; and Members, 45,002.  Nationwide was the 4th largest of Ohio’s 495 credit unions.

Further comments from an August 8, 2006 Credit Union Times article about the sale:

“When what is happening in so many other merger and charter conversions amounts to little more than thievery, the fact that Nationwide was willing to try to do the right thing means a lot,” said Jim Blaine, CEO of the $13 billion State Employees’ Credit Union. 

Blaine said that his comments and support for the purchase reflected the degree of transparency that the CU has offered. “If that transparency were to diminish, if the CU were to hold back on letting its members and the public at large know about how it and Nationwide Bank arrived at the $79 million price tag, then the deal might face more of an uphill climb,”  Blaine explained. 

The final member Notice disclosures were significant including full details of merger costs, loss of member control, and that taxation of the bank might lower returns to savers. The article continues:

McCune and other banking analysts note that a premium of even 150% or 200% of equity for an independent CU might not be out of line and would still be considered inexpensive compared to the prices commanded by independent thrifts. . . 

“The phenomenon (of a credit union sale) is more likely to remain an occasional development where banks might approach CUs which have access to particular markets or market niches and where CU members would be willing to sell. Everyone has a price,” the analyst noted, 

The Nationwide sale was approved by a wide margin in as reported in this November 7 article:

CEO Paula Edwards said that almost 17,000 of the CU members took part in the election and that almost 90% of the members who voted cast ballots in favor of the merger. 

Approving the deal means that Nationwide’s members will receive $79 million total, or roughly 15% of their account balances as of the end of March of this year as the price for the sale. The new bank will benefit from the purchase by having a readymade customer and deposit base that would have taken it months or years to develop otherwise. 

The Significance of Nationwide FCU’s Sale

Members were returned all of their cooperative capital plus an estimated premium of $17 million more.  This represented a gain of approximately 15% on their individual share balances.  In banking sales, this valuation is often referred to as the deposit premium when valuing a transaction.

According to CU Times, there were some who thought this transaction could be an example for additional deals.

Some view the Nationwide deal as the model for the potential takeovers of credit unions. Nationwide was a very unique case, , , CEO Paula Edwards is one of the true good credit union people and had little choice in that deal. The reasons behind it can be thrown out, but what can’t be thrown out is the premium on capital Nationwide Bank was willing to pay, that’s the potential model going forward. 

“This proposed merger ensures credit union members receive a financial benefit in the transaction. Nationwide has agreed to give members a payment for their ownership interest in the credit union,” said NFCU CEO Paula Edwards.

The Irony of This Transaction

On May 7, 2018 Nationwide announced it was getting out of the retail banking business.

The insurer said Monday that it has decided to move away from operating as a full-service, federally chartered retail bank — the kind of place where people cash checks, sign up for CDs and the like. Instead, it plans to focus its bank-related services on those that support its retirement-plan business. 

Implementing this intention, Nationwide made a follow on announcement August 3rd, 2018:

Nationwide has taken a big step as part of its plan to get out of the retail banking business. 

The insurer said Friday that it is selling $3 billion in deposits at Nationwide Bank to BofI Holding, the parent of BofI Federal Bank, in a deal that is expected to close before the end of the year. The sales price was not disclosed. 

BofI Federal Bank, based in San Diego, is a nationwide bank that provides financing for single-family and multifamily residential properties and small and medium-sized business in certain target areas. 

Even selling to a new charter or transferring control does not assure financial longevity.

How NFCU and Bank Transactions Are Relevant Now

There are two immediate conversions from a credit union charter that will entail a valuation with  potential member payout.

June 23, 20 24 the FDIC announced the following:

The FDIC approved a deposit insurance application submitted by Thrivent Financial for Lutherans in relation to a proposed Utah industrial bank, Thrivent Bank. The FDIC also approved a related merger application that will permit Thrivent FCU to merge the operations of its existing credit union into the newly formed Thrivent Bank. 

The newly approved Thrivent Bank will not operate physical branch office locations and intends to deliver all bank products and services exclusively online, offering a diversified loan portfolio centered in consumer loans and funded primarily by core deposits, following a traditional bank business model.  Thrivent Bank will offer products and services without regard to religious affiliation.

Thrivent FCU has total assets of $930 million and a net worth of $129 million . What will member-owners receive in this sale to an industrial bank charter formed by the Sponsoring company?   Will it follow the Nationwide payment precedent?

The second event is the combination Arrah Credit Union with the $378 million, mortgage centric, Pittsfield Cooperative Bank.  The details are in this August  14, 2024 Credit Union Times report:

Chartered in 1929, Arrha’s 27 employees operate three locations, and manage $110 million in loans, $122 million in total shares and deposits, and $12.4 million in equity, according to NCUA financial performance reports. The credit union posted a loss of $9,222 at the end of the second quarter.

The process to combine is very cumbersome. A minimum of 20% of the eligible members are required to vote for the transaction to proceed.

Arrha’s NIMRA application, under review by the NCUA, included 15 different documents and statements such as the merger plan, the proposed merger agreement, a copy of the bank’s last two examination reports, copies of all contracts reflecting any merger-related compensation or other benefit to be received by any director or senior executive, a statement of the merger valuation of the credit union, and a statement of whether any merger payment will be made to the members and how much of a payment will be distributed among members.

The question raised by these two current events, the growth in bank purchases and the Nationwide sale and other conversion precedents is why aren’t credit union being  member-owners compensated today? When  members are asked to approve the transfer and control of all their assets and common wealth to another credit union via merger, shouldn’t they be treated as least as well as when credit unions pay out bank owners?

Time to Take a Stand and Act

Its time for those who believe in a cooperative system to take a stand and ensure that intra-industry mergers reflect the same process and member-owner payments as every other credit union financial transaction requires.

Without change, the industry will be in  a race to the bottom.   As I described yesterday, one predatory credit union, PenFed, has cancelled 30 long serving credit union charters via merger between 2003 and 2022.   Even as PenFed hits a financial stall, this activity is being imitated by others daily.

Credit unions want all the authorities and options to compete in the open financial markets, but not when it comes to their own brethren.   These industry predators want the opportunities of the free market, but not the responsibility of transparent dealing and ownership reward when taking over another credit union.

These “off market” dealings are corrupting leaders, perverting normal financial practice and encouraging credit unions to go out and “roll up” their kindred in bigger and bigger combinations.  This trend is subverting not just the traditional practice of market based firms, but driving a consolidation eliminating one of the most stratgic advantages of a credit union charter: local control, investment, relationships and community building.

Why can’t the Nationwide outcome be the standard for all credit union mergers as well.  From the above event:

what can’t be thrown out ( of the outcome) is the premium on capital Nationwide Bank was willing to pay, that’s the potential model going forward. 

Shouldn’t that be the model today for all change of control credit union transactions?

 

 

 

 

Posted on

How Mergers Tear Down the Credit Union System

The front page headline in the June 18, 2003 American Banker was “Pentagon Continues Merger Binge.”

The opening paragraph provided the details:

Pentagon FCU was approved to acquire its third credit union in the past six months, the $26 million Fort Hood Military FCU, in Fort Hood Texas, NCUA said Tuesday. That follows two December acquisitions for the $5.8billion credit union, those of $46 million Fort Shafter FCU in Hawaii and $13 million Coast Guard Employees FCU in Maryland.

This twenty year old description was before mergers of sound, long serving independent credit unions became much more widespread. A decade later credit union system CEO’s, consultants and regulators openly promoted these acquisitions as a quick and easy alternative to internal organic growth.  After all isn’t success just a factor of size?

This industry competition for acquisitions was based on offering private personal inducements for CEO’s and senior managers.  The practice became so blatant that in 2017 NCUA passed a rule to bring more transparency to the process.   The rule didn’t slow the wheeling and dealing.   It may have even legitimized these payoffs.

Now credit unions could routinely add wording to the required Notice and Disclosures of these payments and state that the regulators have approved the merger subject only to the member vote.

A Case Study Lookback

Two weeks ago I described the final step in PenFed’s 2021 merger with the $36 million Post Office Credit union in Madison, WI.  In August 2024 PenFed announced the closing of its only office in Madison. Since the 1934 chartering, Post Office’s 3,153 members (at time of merger) had received personal service.  No more.

I called this closure the final step in “asset stripping.” This is the practice in a takeover acquisition to maximize the profit and eliminate any future investment or expenses. All of Post Office’s resources, reserves, member accounts were transferred to the control of the Virginia based PenFed.  There is no longer any local presence, nuance or leadership roles in the community. With this branch closure, all member relationships are now virtual and remote.

The Final Cashout

Last week the land and building of the former Post Office location were put up for sale.

An internal view.

When the merger occurred, Post Office’s call report showed these assets with a book value of $589,222.  The real estate listing on September 17, 2024 had a list price of $1,260,000.  This is an increase of $671,000 (113%) in the three and one half years since the merger.   The net gain on sale all goes to PenFed as “other operating income.”   This is the final liquidation step of this 90-year old credit union which had 22% net worth at the merger date.

All Gain, No Risks, Members Left Behind

Paying nothing in these acquisitions for total control of  all of another credit union’s members’ net worth and reserves makes these takeovers a very profitable practice.  Systematically  stripping out all of the most valuable assets for maximum cash value puts the icing on the cake.  No worry about local commitments or member and community relationships.

Such takeovers are a common strategy in for-profit companies.   However in credit unions there is no acquisition cost, just a few crucial payouts to the CEO and perhaps,  other senior executives whose approval and pitch to the Board is required. It is literally free assets for the taking.

This practice is becoming more widespread.  It is  self-immolation, a systematic  institutional dismantling of the credit union system driven by greed and personal ambition, not member benefit.

In many situations today, the merger destroys the local advantages, loyalties and relationships that are the foundation for credit union’s success. The acquiring credit union’s field of membership, or market focus, has no center or rationale. There are no “network effects” for branding or service delivery that would create operational efficiencies.  Most critically the headquarters and leadership is  hundreds or thousands of miles away.  Local familiarity is all lost.

The consequence of credit unions preying and suborning their fellow CEO’s and boards is systematically demolishing the credit union advantage at both a market level and in the public’s eye.  The coop model is seen as no different from other financial options.  Especially in an era when virtual relationships are available from all financial providers.

And a credit union’s values are the same as every other market participant.  The winner takes all.

The rationale is that growth and size will guarantee success, an assumption frequently at odds with the facts and members’ experience.  Size does not automatically correlate with efficiency, growth or other financial metrics let alone operational excellence.

The PenFed Merger Demolition Derby Takes Off Again

Penfed pulled back from the American Banker’s “binge” strategy during the initial years of this century.  It should be noted that the three mergers listed in the article were all military bases.  One could argue that these were natural affiliations consistent with with PenFed’s focus and traditional brand.  In 2010 there was a single merger with the $11.6 million Tripler FCU in Hawaii.  And then a lull until 2015.

The Merger Frenzy Begins

In 2015 PenFed undertook an aggressive acquisition campaign that lasted until 4Q 2022.  They took over 25 credit unions located in 14 different states in under eight years.  The majority had no military affiliation, such as Post Office, McGraw Hill, Sperry Associates and Progressive.

Progressive, a New York state charter with a single office focused on taxi medallion lending.  This merger of a “troubled” institution resulted in a gain in the year acquired; more importantly it gave PenFed a field of membership open to anyone in America (the old Progressive state charter’s FOM).

The combined  assets of these 25 acquisitions at the time of merger was almost $3.0 billion.    As in Post Office’s example, control over all the assets, reserves, allowances and  member relationships were transferred to PenFed’s head office.  In some instances such as the very successful $265 million  Perry Associates single office credit union, the office was closed immediately after the merger. The employees  were let go, and all members forced into a virtual, remote service model.

Dismantling the Coop System

This systematic dismantling of credit unions and their successful local market positions is being emulated by other credit unions.  The hunt is  supported by a host of hanger’s on who benefit by facilitating this organized tear down of the cooperative alternative.

In many of the combinations below, the members, if a merger were really necessary, would have been better off with a local option familiar with their market and bringing real operational synergies.  But  in these private deal makings, the largest payoff to the CEO wins.  And besides no one ever looks back to see what happened.  Except for the members who begin to vote with their feet.

PenFed’s Eight Year Acquisition Spree

But  Does It Work?

One could still ask however if the strategy works as a growth enhancement to normal organic tactics. When PenFed completed the final Allus acquisition in 4Q 2022, it reported total assets of $35.9 billion.

At June 2024, PenFed’s total assets were $33.5 billion.   It would take more time to calculate all the other merger downsides such as local branches closed, the employees laid off and the number of members who left after being turned over to an organization with which they have no connection.   In its initial merger frenzy, PenFed’s growth looked easy and free of any cost or risks.

However members soon see the asset stripping and the absence of local leadership. Moreover, PenFed lost every credit union’s most important strategic advantage: the hard earned, unique value of long lasting member relationships.

When CEO’s care more about themselves then they do for members’ well being, the difference that makes cooperatives successful is gone.

PenFed is not alone in its disruptive wasting of long standing successful cooperative charters.  The question for those who believe in the unique role and purpose of cooperative design, is whether this faux capitalistic model becomes the norm for the system.  Or  like all false idols, will be defeated by the example of those who think the credit union model is first and foremost for members’ benefit, not managers or boards’ personal ambitions.

Posted on

Can Democracy Work? An Historical Election Enters the Final Phase

As important as this November’s Presidential and congressional contests are, an even more critical election for the democratic credit union system is underway at SECU North Carolina.

For the second year, there is a contested election to the board of directors.   At SECU’s October 2023 annual meeting three member-nominated candidates won seats from three incumbents.  This year four seats are open.  The four board selected incumbents are opposed by a four member-nominated slate that includes three former SECU senior employees.

This event is historical for SECU and the credit union system.

  • It is highly unusual for any credit union,  especially the second largest in America, to have an election the provides members  a real choice of who will  represent them.
  • SECU’s size demonstrates the feasibility of this  cooperative voting process. At an estimated 2.8 million members, all eligible voters received a mail-in ballot; or, they can vote virtually by going online; or finally, vote in person , at the October 8th annual meeting.
  • The election demonstrates that democratic governance, versus self-nominated perpetual director selections by boards, is a viable credit union member oversight process.  One member, one vote, not weighted by the percentage of ownership as in most corporations.

Entering the Final Weeks

Absentee online virtual voting ends October 1.   Both sides are promoting get out the vote campaigns.   The credit union has added a webpage with descriptions of the  election   steps.  Linking to the Learn More tab presents a two minute video from SECU Chair Mona Moon explaining the board’s nomination process and the virtues of their four incumbent candidates.  There is a second video with brief profiles and statements of these  four,  but not videos for  the competing slate.

In addition to the four  incumbents’ use of this “home court advantage” in presenting themselves , the credit union appears to be buying ads supporting their election on social media.  Here is an example with the SECU logo:

The Opposition’s Campaign

The member nominated slate is also active with a Facebook social media site SECU for All.

The site’s purpose is:

The member-nominated candidates are the underdogs in this race—up against a $50 billion SECU led by a board & administration that’s spending your money to suppress members’ voices and prop up these incumbents.

Help us spread the word! EVERY SINGLE VOTE MATTERS!

This Facebook landing page shows widespread grass roots participation as well as material for supporters’ use with their friends.  An additional site is a SECU for All resource with links to bios, letters sent to local news outlets and other campaign material.

The over a dozen letters to local newspapers are first hand member testimonies of support.  This effort has prompted local press coverage as appears in this excerpt below.

The SECU for All site includes multiple single and joint video statements from the four candidates explaining why they are running and their top priorities.   Many direct endorsements from former employees and/or current members are posted.

Other credit union CEO’s sent endorsements such as a video from Latino Credit Union’s co-founder with this intro:

The SECU member-nominated Board candidates are honored to have the endorsement of John Herrera, a true leader for the credit union cause. In addition to being a 31-year SECU member, Mr. Herrera co-founded the Latino Community Credit Union as well as serving on the NC Credit Union Commission and the National Credit Union Administration. 

Real Differences In Candidates’ Positions?

The four incumbents speak in general terms about “serving all the members,” but do not offer any specific changes or priorities that members might relate to.  It is certainly expected that incumbents would support the status quo.

The challengers have published five priorities: 

1) End Risk Based Lending. Restore the same, best rate for every member.

2) Restore competitive savings rates for every member.

3) Restore the commitment to “Do the Right Thing” for every member.

4) Restore the local focus. Local communities, local jobs, local decisions for every member.

5) Restore the employees’ faith in fairness, equal opportunity, and quality service for every member.

In addition, they question several areas of financial performance  including low share growth, the need for competitive rates, rising delinquencies and growing loan charge offs.  Some of these critiques are presented in the former CEO Jim Blaine’s blog SECU-Just Asking.

A Real Choice on Real Issues

The members’ choice between the status quo versus the challengers’ positions should certainly generate more owner interest in their credit union.  Who knew we could vote on the direction of our credit union?

Most importantly the election process will help clarify fundamental questions for SECU’s volunteers and senior management.

How does the leadership of a cooperative differ from traditional financial organizations?   What are the candidates’ views of a credit union’s fundamental purpose and unique role, if any?

Should members have to “earn”  their worth  to have an equal  standing for services?

Is the primary objective to serve the members’ needs or to promote the institution’s  market success?   As  one candidate remarked in his video, “to take care of the members, we have to take care of the organization.”  Are these duties separate or one?

For decades America’s competitive market dynamics for both individuals and organizations have promoted a culture of  “always wanting more.”  Greater growth, higher income , increased prestige and enhanced political and social power.  Outcomes that often come at the expense of others.

Both candidate groups want SECU to succeed.   The question the members will be able to address is how this greatness is going to  be defined.

Posted on

The Cooperative Way to Manage an Isolated Branch

Last week I described the abrupt closing of the Madison WI branch of PenFed FCU  which it acquired via  the merger of Post Office Credit Union (POCU) in 2020.

There was no public announcement.  Some members were alerted, but many weren’t.  The employees lost their jobs.  The members no longer had a physical presence for this coop operation begun in 1935.

I described this as an example of “asset stripping” in which the continuing credit union takes the most valuable parts of a organization and then disposes of the rest.  While this approach is not unique to PenFed, it is routine in many of their  post-merger operations.

Other credit unions sometimes acquire new branches via mergers outside their home state, often hundreds of miles away.  There is no synergy or “network effects” with the continuing credit union’s primary market. Closing these “under performing” locations is seen as an acceptable management decision.

But is this the best option for members?  As credit unions point out bank branch closures to defend their FOM expansion requests, are some coops guilty of the same activity?

A Better Way: The Branch Transfer

As PenFed’s August shutdown of its Madison location was finished, two credit unions demonstrated a better way. First Harvest in New Jersey and Members 1st in Pennsylvania, announced the  completion of a cooperative approach to the challenge of an isolated member service location.

This past month, the spin off of the Williamsport, PA branch of First Harvest, acquired in a merger in 2016, was finalized. The transfer of First Harvest’s local branch members, employees and  resources to Members 1st, which operates over 60 branches, in Pennsylvania became official.

Mike Wilson, CEO of Members 1st and Mike Dinneen, CEO of First Harvest had both begun their leadership roles at the same time in mid 2023.  They knew each other from working together in different Pennsylvania credit unions.  They discussed their joint efforts in an interview ten days ago.

Upon taking over at First Harvest, Mike began evaluating his business and strategic priorities.  The Williamsport PA branch  was over three hours away from the Deptford, N.J. head office.   The distance from his primary South Jersey market focus made it difficult to support fully the employees and over 1,000 members using this location.

Closing the branch was not an option.  What solution could be  in the best interests of the members, staff and community?

In discussions with his counterpart at Members 1st in late 2023 the two CEO’s agreed to a joint  project to assess whether  a transfer of the entire operation would make sense for everyone.

Members 1st had 7,000 members in the greater Williamsport area but no location in the county. This branch with its experienced staff offered an opportunity to build out this new market area with  an in place local presence.

The two CEOs established a process to involve the local employees and members in the evaluation.  NCUA required that  a transfer of branch be done following steps similar to a merger:  the members would be given notice, vote on the option, and a third party monitor  results. The final decision  would be by the members.

Following NCUA approval in February of 2024 both credit unions held meetings with employees and  in multiple member open forums.  Both credit unions’ leaders attended, including evening sessions so all could ask questions.

The voting took place in April.   The transfer was overwhelmingly supported  with between 20-25 % voting  participation, a much higher rate than for a traditional merger.

Mike Wilson stressed that the key  success factor was staff retention and their support.  Mike Dinneen noted that the “spin off” was not a performance  issue but a proximity one.   In his view the critical factor was finding the best cultural fit for staff and members.

An Example of Cooperative Values and Collaboration

These two credit union CEOs were guided by values that put their members’ and employees’ well-being foremost.  There were also institutional advantages for both firms if the transfer was thoughtfully conducted.

The members were deeply involved in the process.   The two credit unions took almost a year to evaluate how the spinoff might best work and to develop and communicate the advantages of this change.

By this effort they maintained the goodwill and reputation of not only their individual  institutions, but also for the member-centric public reputation  of credit unions.

PenFed cut and ran when closing their Madison branch.  This operational presence  had  been in the community for over 89 years.  Consider what a different impression these 3,000 or so members would have if there had been an effort to transfer the operations to a local  cooperative willing to continue  service for the community.

But that choice would have required PenFed to put members’ interests first.  Instead they took all the “free” capital and other valuable resources from this previously independent credit union.  The members were forced into a remote, digital-first service model.  The local commitment and presence of nine decades was over.

This contrasting approach is a  reminder to credit unions enraptured by a credit union’s rhetorical promises during courtship, that the marriage rarely lives up to the hype.  Especially for the member offspring.

 

Posted on

Lookback:  The Rest of the Story of Post Office CU’s Merger with PenFed

On December 28th, 2020 the 85-year, $35 million Post Office Credit Union (POCU) in Madison, Wisconsin ceased to be an independent charter. After voting, the 3,196 members and their savings, loans and abundant reserves (22% net worth) were transferred to the $26 billion PenFed Credit Union in Virginia.  (Source:  Seeking 25 Credit Union Faithful)

As detailed in The Problem We All Share, this merger proposal was too rich for the CEO to pass up:

“The Wisconsin credit union, chartered in 1934, has a net worth ratio of 22%, seven employees, one branch and serves all of Dane County. It is sound, well-run and lonserving. https://www.pocu.com/our-story

“In the October 15, 2020 Special Meeting Notice, the required disclosures show that the CEO will receive a five-year employment contract with an increase in annual salary to $125,000; the Vice president has a comparable gain.

“Select” employees will get a 10% retention bonus and all, a three-year employment offer. If either the CEO or Vice President terminates employment, they are eligible for one-time payments of up to $614,900.

“Each eligible member will get a one-time $200 capital distribution “if the merger is approved and consummated.” This would be from the credit union’s 22% net worth of $7.6 million and is estimated at only 8% ($640,000) of this total. (or in total less than the onetime payments to the CEO and Vice President). The remaining $7.0 million reserves transfers to PenFed as other operating income, that is free money.

“The payments are in plain sight, all contingent on a merger. The member notice provides not a single rate, fee or factual service benefit from this action. In the merger Notice the wording about the future of the single office location is vague: “PenFed intends to maintain the current POCU branch at. . .”

But now we know the rest of the story not just the branch’s status, but for the promised betterment of the 3,200 member-owners

The Rest of the Story

A week ago I received a text from a former CUNA employee and member of PenFed at their Madison branch.   He asked if I knew what had happened to the former POCU head office after finding an earlier post I had written about the merger.

He sent this picture of the branch’s status:

He had seen this sign when he visited on August 2, saying the branch would close forever on August 23, 2024 at 1:00 PM.  He had opened his account in-person and received no closure notice.  Two other members he knew who had opened their accounts online and also had no notice.

The land and building were owned by POCU/PenFed, the location right across the street from the main Post Office.  Presumably it will now be sold with PenFed booking a gain on the book value of the property.  This is the final act of what is commonly called “asset stripping” when a takeover occurs and the buyer keeps the most valluab;e assets and sells the rest.

The branch with blank signage.

Office equipment disposed, not donated.

The commitment to keep the office open, with its employees, local convenience and legacy relationships lasted three and a half years.  All the transition expenses of the merger, the payouts, the conversion costs to new systems, the termination of vendor contracts are “sunk costs.”  There is no enhancement to member value.

The merger itself ended all local governance and representation.  The closure of this local presence means no local oversight of investments or loans in the community, no further ( if there was ever any) of the promised $50,000 annual local donations , no employment and no participation in the credit union system in Wisconsin.

PenFed made no announcement of this closure.   In the quarterly call reports, it states its FOM potential is the entire population of the US.   So members in Madison now have a relationship no different from any other person who joins remotely.   And all they got from this deal was $200 to give up their extraordinarily successful 85-year charter.

The rest of the story is that PenFed acted in its self-interest to close a location that it must have deemed “unprofitable” and/or contrary to its focus on digital first members.

That is not what was promised.   But we now know, as we did then, that all the promises were nothing more than phony baloney.  Here is an excerpt from the  initial story link above:

How can one know this is not a considered, well intentioned decision to enhance members’ future? After all, the Post Office board of directors affirmed in their Notice that the merger is desirable for the following reasons:

  • Our board evaluated strategic possibilities to ensure that you our member, will continue to receive the full range of products and service you deserve.
  • We have been diligently seeking to find alternatives.
  • Only one option meets the full range of our objectives: growth of membership, expansion of product offerings, infusion of investment in IT cybersecurity, improved training and enhanced community service. . .PenFed is in the best interests of our members.

The director’s closing assurance of its considered judgment is given in these words:

“It is the recommendation of your Board that you vote “yes” to approve the merger. Please be assured that you are our valued member, and we have every confidence that you will be pleased by the level of commitment service, and value that you will receive from PenFed etc. . . “

If the financial facts were not sufficiently self-incriminating, these words  expose the dishonesty of the Board’s actions. There was no due diligence of PenFed that caused them to choose this from “ a range of options.” How do we know? Because these are exactly the same representations word for word sent to the members by Sperry Associates and Magnify, PenFed’s two most recent mergers. And the explicit “assurance” contained in the Notice, “we have every confidence that you will be pleased,” is exactly the same as in these two prior mergers.

PenFed assisted in the drafting of these notices. Since NCUA approved these wordings in the past, it will do so in the future, regardless of their veracity. NCUA endorsed Post Office Board’s assurance of due diligence even though there are no facts in the notice that would confirm this assertion. NCUA’s dereliction in ratifying these exact duplicates of alleged diligent representations of member interests, raises the question whether the agency has any clue about events.

Destroying Credit Union’s Moral Capital

So the POCU branch closing is nothing more than a continued pillaging by PenFed of the institutions whose leaders it pays to turn their members’ assets and relationships over to them.  It is a pattern repeated again and again in over two dozen PenFed mergers,  A  local, long time, financially sound credit union is merged via CEO inducements, and then closed and stripped of its best assets.

PenFed is one example, albeit a leading one, of credit unions preying on their own system.  This strategy undermines the whole cooperative advantage and model.  There is no evidence it is even a successful growth strategy for the continuing credit union.

A prior NCUA board member stated the agency’s  merger oversight responsibility as: “Our focus is on ensuring member interests are protected through the regulatory process.” That is obviously not happening.

I think a more accurate description of the situation is Mark Twain’s assessment of human motivation:

“Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God and over these ideals they dispute and cannot unite–but they all worship money.”

 

 

 

 

Posted on

From the Field: A CEO, a Member and a Retired CEO Speak

It has been said, “Where nothing is forbidden, nothing is required.” Impulse control is certainly a valuable skill for all adolescents to learn.

But for a leader with fiduciary responsibility for common wealth, held for tens of thousands of members to benefit their financial futures, it is essential for sound judgment. Sometimes this responsibility underwrites actions that suggest little accountability to the member-owners.

Yesterday REV FCU, Charleston SC, announced the purchase of the 110 year old First Neighborhood Bank, a $152 million, three-branch firm headquartered in Spenser West Virginia.  The privately owned bank reported $556,000 in 2023 net income and $12 million in total capital.

REV CEO Jason Lee in a CU Today article said ”I’m excited to bring this mission of growth with purpose to West Virginia and enhance our ability to serve the financial needs of this region.”   The article pointed out the two institutions are 520 miles apart.  No terms were announced.

How this unknown cash outlay of tens of millions of member reserves to the bank’s owners will benefit REV members is not stated.  The rhetoric and unrelated information provided in the article, leads one to be skeptical that this action benefits them in any way.  With 14.5% net worth, REV has accumulated member reserves almost 50% greater than required.  Is this surplus  just burning a hole in this CEO’s pocket?

A Retired CEO’s Message

The strained rhetorical justifications of these serendipitous credit union purchases of bank has led some former leaders to question whether there is any meaningful belief in cooperative design.  Have some of today’s coops just become private, tax-exempt firms using their growing financial resources to fulfill personal ambition?

Following is one lament, from a very successful former CEO who recently wrote:

“I mentioned to you once a quote that “all symphonies remain unfinished.” I have moved on to the second movement of mine, so to speak. 

“Some folks in community banking have asked for my assistance in taking on credit unions, head-to-head, nose to nose. I have enthusiastically accepted. I have been scheduled for some webinars and convention sessions in the next few months.

It was my privilege to walk among giants; you, Bucky, Jim Blaine, and many others. Thank you. Sadly, Camelot is dead and the movement is no more. Members are a means to an end, that end being feeding the cash flows of executive compensation, vendors, consultants, CUNA/ NAFCU and the NCUA.”

A Member Reacts to the Merger of His Credit Union

A member wrote of his disappointment following the merger of the credit union he had joined as an employee of the sponsor.  This comment from over a year ago, and the examples he describes, have only multiplied since.

“You likely already know if this is true or not.  I wonder if national banks are aware of all the CU mergers and trying to lure disgruntled credit union member away from the new Continuing Credit Union that the member has no relationship with.  I just got an email from M&T Bank about a $250 new account offer.  The web must be tracking my bank/credit union shopping and my data is being sold like everything else we do online.  

If all the mergers are similar to Xceed/Kinecta’s, then there are a lot of officers in small CUs that are getting big paydays.  It looks like all these smaller CU executive teams must do is sell their members on the idea that a merger with a larger CU benefits each of them somehow.   I’d imagine the smaller credit union leaders are seeing their peers who are part of mergers getting big raises, bonuses or severances for a comfy retirement and want the same. 

Xceed’s President/CEO is eligible to received $1,500,000 possible maximum compensation for 3 years after the merger my notice states.  She gets an immediate raise of $71,403. The if she is terminated for “good reason” within 3 years she is eligible for a prorated severance in a max potential of $1,500,000. The others  (senior executives) all stand to gain between roughly $250,000-$600,000 under different but similar conditions. 

Possibly the word is out among the CU community that Big credit unions are looking for Small prey credit unions and if you’re lucky enough to get caught, simply agree to be eaten and those at the top of the small credit union get rich at the expense of the membership. 

You made me happy sharing my feelings if this helps others impacted by these mergers. Maybe if enough members leave after their credit unions merge, the remaining small credit union Presidents/CEOs will think twice and keep the community or employer-based CU in place.  

Sorry Chip for running on with my “It’s a wonderful life” like email.   I read back my email and laughed at myself.  Anyway, have a great rest of the day. ”  

Three separate examples.  These people are saying “Without vision the people perish,”  or more accurately, the cooperative system in America.