An Example of Leaders’ Most Crtical Quality

The example of Boeing Employees Credit Union two recent CEO selections proves the adage that most organizations are onlly two transitions from failure. Not just performance shortfalls, but more importantly the loss or founding purpose and the associated values and culture.

Newly installed CEO’s espeically from outside an organization assume they have been chosen to give new direction from their external experiences, often without first understanding the resources they now direct.

The failures are not due to lack of talent, skills or knowledge, but rather a more fundamental gap, an inability to discern the foundation for the success they inherit. That shortcoming is especially vital in democratically designed organizations such as credit unions:

In democratic organization, It turns out, in the end, there’s only one institutional factor that actually matters: Good character. Everything else in a democratically governed system follows and relies on that simple foundation.

To put the current BECU leadership culture in perspective, here is a summary of the legacy that Gary Oakland created upon his retirement in 2013. From a press release by CUNA.

Gary Oakland Wins Wegner Award for Lifetime Achievement

National Credit Union Foundation to Present Four Awards on February 24, 2014MADISON, WI (September 4, 2013) — In recognition of his visionary approach to leadership and extraordinary commitment to the credit union movement, the National Credit Union Foundation (NCUF) is pleased to announce Gary Oakland, retired President/CEO of BECU in Seattle, Wash., as a winners of the 2014 Herb Wegner Memorial Award for Lifetime Achievement.

“Gary is a slam dunk as a choice to bestow the Wegner Lifetime Achievement Award,” said John Gregoire, Chair of NCUF Wegner Awards Selection Committee. “Gary’s contributions to the credit union movement were so obvious as everything he touches turns to success for the average American consumer. It’s evident in the growth of BECU, the state supervision system, dual credit union chartering, Biz Kid$, NCUF, and much more. It’s also an honor to see Gary receiving the award rather than giving one.

”Tireless Supporter of the Credit Union Movement

Over the course of his career, Oakland has supported the credit union movement in a myriad of ways. Those include serving on the board of the Credit Union National Association and as board chair for the Washington Credit Union League, the National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors (NASCUS), Filene Advisory Council and Board, and the National Credit Union Foundation.In his time as CEO of BECU, he guided the credit union to provide aid for more than a dozen low income credit unions across the country, often single-handedly locating the funds to keep his fellow members-first organizations afloat in times of hardship.

With his leadership, BECU was also able to play key roles in the founding of two low-income designate credit unions: TULIP Credit Union and Express Credit Union. Oakland also oversaw BECU’s creation of Prime Alliance (now Mortgage Cadence), a Credit Union Service Organization that provides mortgage solutions to approximately 600 credit unions.

“Until his recent retirement, [Gary] ably served as an intellectual thought leader on every important issue facing credit unions,” said Mary Martha Fortney, President and CEO of NASCUS. “Of particular note and importance are his dedication and efforts to make supplemental capital a reality for all natural person credit unions. We are seeing the result of Gary’s work on this issue today as supplemental capital in being considered on Capitol Hill.”
High-Impact Commitment to Member ValueOakland is hailed for his unfaltering dedication to improving value for the credit union member. Exemplifying the effect of this commitment, BECU grew from 108,000 members when he took on the position of CEO in 1986 to over 775,000 members at the time of his retirement in 2012.Oakland was known for accommodating the needs of Boeing employees and providing guidance in responsible financial practices. He also led the credit union to a statewide field of membership to allow more members of the community to benefit from the credit union advantage: member-focused service with better rates and fewer fees.While this growth trajectory could have changed the organization’s culture, Oakland held BECU true to its founding principles and the credit union philosophy of People Helping People. In 2006, BECU had an opportunity to return a portion of its reserves to its member base. He instated the Member Advantage account, which reversed the interest rate tiers, providing more return for smaller savings accounts and creating incentive to start saving at a time when U.S. savings rates were at or below 0.

“At the local level, Gary advocated for the member at every turn,” said Rae K. Miles, President of Innovative Resources, LLC. “He changed policy to help Boeing employees when they needed it most and led by example in promoted the importance of thrift to the membership. His ‘people helping people’ efforts went well beyond the membership of BECU.”

Biz Kid$ Spearhead

Among Oakland’s most influential accomplishments was the role he played in the launch of the PBS program, Biz Kid$, an award-winning financial education show for youth. Through leading the production initiative, committing $500,000 initially and $1 million over-all, bringing together a group of credit unions that raised $2.6 million per year, and ultimately making the project a possibility, Oakland has become the face associated with the show’s success.

After five seasons, Biz Kid$ has won 2 Emmy Awards and was nominated for 11 more. It claims nationwide recognition and makes a daily difference in the lives of its youth audiences.

“Had it not been for Gary’s effort, leadership, financial and personal commitment, [Biz Kid$] would never have happened,” said Rudy Hanley, President and CEO of SchoolsFirst FCU. “The result has been overwhelming. After five seasons, 13 Emmy nominations and 2 Emmy awards, the program is being delivered to millions of students through a variety of channels and participating organizations. The stature of the credit union brand has been greatly enhanced thanks to his vision and leadership.”

Steadfast Dedication to Employees

Amidst his countless other commitments and initiatives, Oakland still managed to earn the full respect and gratitude of his employees for his supportive and encouraging approach to leadership. He put his employees before himself and made concerted efforts to urge them to embrace personal and career growth opportunities. As a result of Gary’s compassion and attitude, BECU claims one of the lowest employee turnover rates in the industry and five former BECU employees are now CEOs of other credit unions.

“Gary understands that ‘People Helping People’ begins at home,” said Roger Mauldin, BECU Director. “It was always important to Gary that employees have a healthy work-life balance, be paid a fair wage, receive good benefits and know they are appreciated.”

“Man of Steel” Philanthropist

Described as a “Good Samaritan”, Oakland has left a legacy that extends the credit union philosophy well outside the credit union movement. He is known for his generosity and selflessness as well as a tendency to go above and beyond the call of duty.

In 1995, at a member’s suggestion, he led the establishment of the BECU Foundation, a chartered foundation that provides college scholarships to students who excel in academics, leadership and community service. Since its creation, the BECU Foundation has awarded more than $1.5 million to 715 students.

Oakland served on the Board of Seattle’s Neighborhood Children’s Club, helping many children get on the right track to a productive future, and has guided BECU to support a number of non-profit organizations that provide affordable housing, including Habitat for Humanity, Rebuilding Together, Impact Capital and Plymouth Housing.

“Gary has been a trailblazer and a most generous and dedicated philanthropist, both inside and outside of the credit union movement,” said Robert L. Coleman, Director of Northwest Baptist FCU. “Gary Oakland’s career was spent not only ensuring the absolute best for his membership, but also ensuring the success of those surrounding him.”

(emphasis added)

April 20, 2026April 20, 2026

Boeing Employees Credit Union Culture and the Proposed SAFE Merger

On April 13, CU Daily reported on a conversation that SAFE CU long time member Scott Rose had with the CEO Faye Nabhani. The article detailed Scott’s objections and the CEO’s response on SAFE’s new merger effort. (link)

The proposal to transfer control of the $4.4 billion SAFE and its 245,000 Sacramento area members to Boeing Employees Credit Union has had coverage in the local press (Sacramento BEE) and on blog sites. For example this post on SECU Just Asking lists four fundamental objections to the surrender of the state charter. It poses the question whether the California CU Regulator is Asheep at the Wheel? (link)

Much information has been provided by Scott and others about what this charter loss would cost SAFE members and the community. Less analysis has been provided about BECU’s leadership and financial trends. Nothing has been in the SAFE’s press releases about BECU’s performance, leadership culture, or strategy.

Last week I wrote a post describing BECU’s high cost culture resulting in an operating expense to asset ratio of 3.33%, much higher than the large credit unions in California. The nine BECU directors were paid an average compensation of $118,000 in 2024 with he Chair receiving $154,000. In California, state regulation prohibits director compensation which is the federal credit union legal situation

Insiders’ Opinions on BECU’s Culture and CEO

But what was new about the situation was the almost dozen responses to the CU Daily article by readers, They all describe a very disturbing leadership environment at BECU.

They report situations that only employees would be aware of. Have these issues been discussed by the SAFE board? Has there been any onsite due diligence? Is this a leadership culture that one would want in charge of 245,000 members’ future?

Whatever the full story might be, there is a lot more for members to know if their future should be put in hands of the BECU board and their
CEO’s recently arrived senior team.

11 Responses (link)

The 18 month no layoff should be little assurance. BECU needs those employees until they get on the same system. After they do, and when the SAFE CEO leaves at 18 months, there won’t be local leadership and no one to protect the local employees and community. Since BECU’s expense issue is so severe, there will be a lot of job reductions in CA.

Performative at best.

Glad these conversations are happening and that he’s asking the right questions—he’s pushing in the way more people should.

What’s becoming clear, though, is that the credit unions don’t really have strong answers—they just have strong PR. BECU, in particular, is very good at managing perception.

Underneath that, the leadership approach feels far more like a traditional bank than a credit union. The new CEO comes across as performative at best—saying the right things publicly, but not reflecting that same philosophy behind closed doors.

Internally, employees have described leadership as political and calculated—always saying the right thing publicly, but the moment anyone questions it, they’re pushed out, fired, or laid off.

BECU isn’t new to working the layoff systems with minimal NDA’s and severance packages. Last April, several employees were let go, and shortly after, nearly identical roles were reposted and filled—often through existing networks or familiar circles. All while moving forward with a costly (millions!) and terribly structured naming rights deal.

You can’t claim credit union values while operating like that.

100% a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Just because you “meet them and they said all the right thungs” doesn’t mean they are not well coach and performative AF. What that leadership teams says in public and what they do behind thr scenes are two very different things. . .

Anonymous says:

Someone from SAFE should ask why BECU’s General Counsel, Chief Auditor, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Impact Officer, and Chief Business Officer all decided to leave, more or less at once. Nothing normal about that.

Anonymous says:

Don’t forget the ENTIRE executive team that left within months of the new CEO coming on. It’s a revolving door in the C-Suite for a reason.

Most of the employees at BECU were very excited with this hire even knowing the CEO came from Wells Fargo, she seemed to say all the right things, talk about the movement, the members first philosophy, actually we all felt a little inspired and then reality hit.

3.5 years later BECU is a shell of what it was and there is no stewardship towards the CU movement AT ALL behind closed doors, it’s 100% toxic and performative. They have pushed out so many of the employees and leaders that made that place special.

So I am so glad Faye liked her and that Bev said “all the right things” but it is shallow and performative just like others have mentioned. She is a very very good actor in public, she very much slips up behind closed doors. To having the table slammed in front of you while profanities were flying to lying about how she was “listening” to employees with “listening sessions” but behind closed doors was saying “Gotta go pretend that I care about what they say” (jaw dropping really….) to being shushed in meetings for no reason, to tearing people up because they got one thing wrong in a speech she was giving.

The executive team is no longer local to Seattle, they live in Atlanta, New York, and LA – flying in on the companies dime with no connection to the region or any care about moving the community forward. Yes, they EMT and Board are being incentivized for a merger, so they chose a “SAFE” merger (pun intended) to get their bonuses and show they increased they asset size, cause their net growth is not great.

Anonymous says:

Good someone is asking the right questions. Fact is, Bev Anderson and her cadre of big bank execs she brought on Talk the Talk but don’t Walk the Walk when it comes to credit union values. She gutted the original EMT and slowly but surely pushed every exec who challenged what new operating values and the way people are treated out the door.

As another commenter said here, she’s amazing in public but behind closed doors treats people terribly. There is a verb in use at BECU now that you’ve “been Bev’d”, and that means she cursed at you, yelled threw a tantrum and most likely in front of your peers or even subordinates. Very inappropriate. Not to mention the Wells Fargo and Equifax background, hiring of other execs who have no clue about what Coops mean and ongoing performative gymnastics. It’s sad what BECU has become over the past few years. The board should be ashamed of themselves.

Time for More Facts on the Table

Four more comments follow, several as recently as yesterday. This is an environment that needs to be brought into the discussion more than any data or numbers or rhetorical future promises.

The facts about BECU’s new CEO’s leadership actions are just a prelude to what SAFE employees, leadership and members will encounter if control of SAFE is turned over to her.

April 17, 2026

Are Volunteers Still the Heart and Soul of the Credit Union Movement?

Many think of April as the month taxes are due. For the untaxed credit union system there is a more relevant event. In America, April is volunteer month. The country honors the millions of citizens who serve their communities and neighbors by sharing their most precious resource—their time.

This volunteer spirit is a vital part of American history and culture. Because the role of government was either nonexistent or limited in the country’s early years, citizens would volunteer to solve common needs. In 1736 Benjamin Franklin organized the first city fire department for Philadelphia, all volunteers. Today 65% of the country’s fire fighters are volunteers. Their collective effort is estimated to be valued at $50 billion if they were paid.

Down through history to the present day in every community, volunteers are at the center of vital social, civic and cultural activities It is an essential part of American culture. People take pride, have a sense of duty and enjoy the camaraderie these efforts offer. Just inventory your own involvements.

Cooperatives and Volunteers

The credit union movement was built by volunteers with governmental oversight often rushing to keep up. In the beginning, volunteers borrowed their “authority” to start the first coop and called it St. Mary’s Bank.

This essential contribution to the coop system’s creation is embodied in the public “definition”—non-profit, member-owned and volunteer-led. Until recently, “volunteer” meant unpaid. which is still the rule for federally chartered credit union board members.

Volunteers’ Founding Role

Every credit union active today gained their charter from the sweat equity of volunteer organizers. Often the first managers and staff were unpaid or seconded to oversee the effort while on the sponsor’s payroll. The physical location of these coop startups was donated either by a sponsor or even in a person’s home. These home-based coops were still common enough that in December 2013 the NCUA under Chairman Matz voted 2:1 to prohibit the practice in December 2013 board meeting. The effort was dropped.

The volunteer ethic is embedded in cooperative values. The seven cooperative principles (now eight) all infer or embrace the ideals of self-help and mutual interdependence. The words of the first principle: Credit unions are voluntary, not-for-profit financial cooperatives . . .

Today volunteers remain a vital component of credit union leadership. One example of this energetic leadership potential is from a recent a linkedIn profile. The student is donating part of her undergraduate career to a startup credit union on campus: Student at UNC Chapel Hill *4X World Record Mountaineer*3X TEDx Speaker*Blogger and Research Consultant*MUN Enthusiast*Cyclist* Runner-HM&FM*Badminton player*Artistic Roller Skater.

Concerns about Self-dealing in Coop Leadership

In the first fifty years of state charters, regulators were also worried about the temptations always present when managing other people’s financial resources.

In the early history of Illinois charters for example, senior managers, officers and directors could not borrow from their own credit unions for concern about self-dealing. The solution was to create chapter credit unions providing leaders an independent coop alternative. While this prohibition was changed, the call report today still monitors the total number and amount of loans outstanding to directors, committee members and senior management.

Volunteers No More?

Unlike the federal system in 22 states the credit unions are permitted to pay directors, some with formal rules, other with authority more open-ended.

For example, several years ago I worked with a state charter where directors met three of four times per month in board and committee meetings. This frequency was because compensation was based on the number of meetings attended. Meetings multiplied.

One rationale for paying directors is the need for qualified volunteers. A long- serving CEO whose directors were paid his entire tenure said the practice had the opposite effect. Less attentive directors became harder to replace as they did not want to give up their extra income.

Paying “Volunteers”

What can be learned from the increasing payments going to directors of state charters? Are these credit unions better performing versus their FCU peers? Are they more innovative? Are directors contributing in ways that unpaid volunteers may not?

While these are important issues, I believe one factor and the historical concern is already obvious and concerning. Specifically, does paying directors distort decisions away from what is in member-owners’ best interest, into what is in leadership’s personal interest or benefit?

A Case Study

There has been much public commentary and analysis of the proposed merger between Sacramento based SAFE and Tukwila, OR headquartered Boeing Employees Credit Unions (BECU). An important difference in the two states’ chartering rules is that state charters can pay their directors in Washington but not in California which follows federal practice.

Boeing Employees Credit Union’s 2024 IRS 990 shows the total compensation for the directors as $1.065 million. Chairperson Somberg received $154,375. The average pay for all nine was $118,352. Each reported working six hours per week for the credit union which equates to a $380 per hour rate.

In addition, the former CEO Benson Porter who retired as BECU President in December 2022 received $931,665 with zero working hours. The CEO Beverly Anderson who succeeded Benson reported working full time for 2024 compensation of $2,708, 880 or 17 times the average employee’s salary of $159,327.

One result from this compensation culture is that BECU has one of the highest operating expense ratios to average assets at 3.33% much higher than every California credit union over $10 billion. SAFE’s operating expense ratio in 2025 was 2.56%.

If SAFE directors were truly seeking a better performing opportunity, here are California based credit unions who are much superior to BECU in financial management and branch availability:

Golden 1 (Sacramento) Assets: $21B OpEx: 2.20% Br: 62

SchoolsFirst (Tustin) Assets: $35B OpEx: 1.81% Br: 69

Patelco (Dublin) Assets: $10B OpEx: 1.84% Br: 37

First Tech (San Jose) Assets: $30B OpEx: 2.83% Br: 56

San Diego County (S. D.) Assets: $10B OpEx: 1.84% Br: 44

Redwood (Santa Rosa) Assets: $10B OpEx: 2.28% Br: 21

Logix (Valencia) Assets: $10B OpEx: 1.84% Br: 37

Star One (Sunnyvale) Assets: $10B OpEx: 0.73% Br: 7

A second outcome of this high expense environment from one analyst’s review: members of BECU, on average, pay more for loans and earn a whole lot less on savings… The cost of operating BECU is @+15% higher than all other CU peers! (link)

Given this clear underperformance by BECU versus its peers and local California options, why did the directors of the $4.4 billion SAFE sign a “definitive merger agreement” to transfer control of all operations and all assets to an out of state credit union with no local connections, experience or proximity?

The definitive agreement has not been disclosed, except to announce that several SAFE directors will be given seats on the BECU board where in 2024 the average compensation was $118,000. SAFE directors, as a California charter, are unpaid.

Who will benefit from this compensation if the merger proceeds has not been disclosed. What is known from safecu.org and clicking on SAFE management, is that only three of the current 12 directors were members prior to being nominated to the board of SAFE. SAFE bylaws clearly state that nominees must be members in good standing. In other words the board nomination and selection process would appear to be closely controlled if not irregular.

Following the money helps understand motivation. The new director compensation available post-merger raises important questions. What are the conflicts of interest as SAFE’s board decided to transfer the entire future of this strong local Sacramento institution and its 245,000 members’ $400 million of equity gifted to BECU for free? Especially as BECU’s performance on most all critical financial measures trails large California credit unions and BECU’s national peers.

The Interests of Paid Volunteers

The founders of coops understood human nature. Payments today to state credit union volunteers follow no common pattern or rules, are limited in or disclosed long after the facs in IRS 990filings, and lack transparency and context. In such circumstances human temptations are set loose.

Today there are very limited, if any, checks and. balances on volunteer compensation. As in the multiple situations where millions of dollars are paid to CEO’s who merge their credit unions, the regulators always seem to look away from these instances of self-enrichment. No one and no set of organizations will ever be perfect. Moreover, as BECU’s results suggest, there is no relation between performance and director pay, especially at a high level.

The ongoing credit union merger free-for-alls are opening up this new form of compensation incentive payments. If SAFE is approved, there will be lots of travel to California by credit unions whose boards are paid—think of Colorado and Washington as initial sources.

But the issue is more fundamental than old-fashioned corruption. The director pay practices in some state charters are leading credit unions to an even more critical cliff edge. Recall the public coop definition of non-profit, member-owned, led by volunteers. It is “volunteers” that govern how the other two characteristics of coops evolve. Can paid volunteers be entrusted with protecting these two defining credit union charter characteristics when their own personal well being is involved? Have credit unions morphed into more for-profit leadership behaviors and rewards? But without market accountability?

What’s at stake in the SAFE-BECU proposed merger and in other similar director paid merger initiated combinations is trust in the cooperative system. For the oldest test of character is: “If you have integrity, nothing else matters. And if you don’t have integrity, nothing else matters.”

April 14, 2026April 14, 2026

A Credit Union Moon Shot

Sometime in the next 12 months the proposed Carolina Students’ Credit Union will be launched.

The crew of 31 students is backed by a support team of faculty and credit union interested folk. As noted in yesterday’s post, new charters are rare with fewer than two a year succeeding after lift off.

The Beginning

What motivated these fulltime students to organize this coop venture?

Shiva Rajbhandari is originally from Boise, Idaho. When he arrived on campus as a freshman, he was unable to deposit his scholarship check remotely, so he searched for a financial option in Chapel Hill. As a climate activist, he wished to avoid large banks with their investments in fossil fuels.

When he couldn’t find a credit union available to UNC students, he decided to start one. Shiva is now a junior studying Public Policy and Sociology. He is also the President and founder of the student chartering team.

Critical Milestones Met to Date

By April of 2025 a board of advisors of credit union professionals and faculty was assembled.
NCUA approved their concept with an FOM of undergraduate and graduate students at UNC in August.
After two rounds of recruitment, the launch crew grew to 31 team members.
From advisors’ counsel, the group is seeking a state charter with the NC Credit Union Division. North Carlina has not issued a new charter in over 30 years.
Team members visited the student-run credit unions at Georgetown University and the University of Pennsylvania. They learned about student loan products, potential vendor partners, and university support. One critical takeaway: in the digital campus environment students value local personal service. Over 60% of the Georgetown student body are credit union members.
The first draft of the charter application is complete and circulating to advisors for review. It includes a 40-page continuity plan.-
Campus financial literacy presentations drew over 80 students further documenting interest.

Why a Credit Union Charter?

Founder Sarah Galdi, from Apex, NC, is a sophomore studying Economics and Mathematics. A life-long credit union member, she took for granted the value they provide communities. Then at college she realized not everyone has access to not-for-profit financial services. She describes three situations of immediate focus:

Wells Fargo has a monopoly on our campus. International students, for example, have a difficult time opening accounts with large banks. We will be able to lower these barriers to entry as has been done at UPenn’s credit union. Two international students joined our team because they were personally drawn to our mission .
Student organizations can be disadvantaged by the lack of financial options. To receive funding from student government, organizations must have a bank account. Wells Fargo, requires a minimum deposit to open organizational accounts, meaning students must advance this deposit requirement before receiving University funding.
As a public university, students come from all income levels. Economic inequality on campus mirrors society at large. Some student’s parents add their name on their children’s credit card to establish a credit history. Lower income and first-generation students often lack this option. They have low or no credit scores. This is a significant economic hurdle for these students. We plan to offer credit builder loans to close this gap.

An International Student’s Story

When I first came to the U.S. at 17, I was completely on my own — new campus, new country, no idea what I was doing.

And one of the first walls I hit was just trying to access the basic financial system.

I couldn’t get a debit card because I was under 18. I couldn’t work because I didn’t have a Social Security Number yet. And without an SSN, I couldn’t apply for a credit card It was an exhausting loop—every door seemed to require a key I didn’t have.

The hardest part, honestly, wasn’t even the bureaucracy. It was doing all of it alone. I was just figuring it out as I went, confused, frustrated, and sometimes just worn down by it.

That experience stuck with me. The system isn’t just complicated — it’s genuinely inaccessible for international students, especially those who arrive young. And that’s something I really want to change.

The witer, Hasvi Mariki, joined the credit union luanch crew.

A Standing Ovation at GAC

Through the support of Carolina credit unions and ACU, three student founders attended last month’s GAC. Here is one participant’s account.

At a Credit Union Roundtable, we told the people at our table our story. They got so excited for us, they grabbed a mic. Then they asked me to stand up and share our mission with the 100–200 people in the room. They gave us a standing ovation. People were inspired that we are encouraging young people to join credit unions and work in the credit union industry. We affirmed that cooperative finance is relevant and worth building for the next generation.

An observer at that session sent me this note: The students are choosing to build. Not because it’s easy. Not because the system makes it straightforward. But because they see a gap between what finance is and what it could be.

Regulator’s Funding Requirement

An outreach committee is seeking the initial $500,000 capital now required to receive a charter. Junior Mohammad Qureshi from Greensboro, NC, is the Chair for this task.

“I came to UNC on the pre-med track. From a young age, I knew I wanted a career centered on helping people, and becoming a physician felt like the natural path. But early in my sophomore year, I realized I wasn’t happy.

I switched to economics, as i was surrounded by business growing up. But something still felt off. Most business careers prioritize profit over people, and that bothered me. I’d lost my sense of purpose; sold out on doing something meaningful.

When seeing the opportunity to join the startup, I didn’t know much about credit unions, but I’d always heard of them. I researched and something clicked: high-impact finance that puts people first.

This has been one of the most transformative experiences of my time at UNC. Bringing a credit union to campus has become my way of leaving something meaningful behind, proof that purpose and business don’t have to be in conflict.”

This is Bigger than One Credit Union

This is a more consequential effort than founding one more credit union. It demonstrates the next generation’s belief that coops can make a difference.

Whenever a brand, a product, a company or even fan loyalty created by the founders is not renewed for following generations, consumers’ interest will atrophy and die.

This de novo effort has multiple projects and specific support needs. You can learn about these by contacting Sarah Galdi, Scgaldi@unc.edu or President Shiva Rajbhandari, Shiva.rajbhandari@unc.edu.

The credit union’s website is here. Individuals can make tax exempt donations through CU De Novo, linked here.

Support of this startup will have an impact on campus for students, on the NC credit union system and the public’s perception of coop’s relevance. But most importantly you will feel good knowing you made a difference.

If you have any hesitation, I recommend you talk with one of the founders. That is what convinced me this is a special group who will complete their mission.

April 2, 2026April 3, 2026

America’s Practice of Democracy is “Complicated”

I received three emails yesterday. All contained a common message about my ability to vote in an upcoming organizational election.

The First Request

Be the vote that counts

Dear Vanguard investor,

As an investor in these securities, you have the right to vote on important matters. This is your opportunity to make a direct impact on your investments. Your vote counts!

The specific company in this alert was:

INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY

MAY 11, 2026 ANNUAL MEETING

Vote by May 10, 2026

There was a vote now link to the the company’s meeting notice, annual report and a ballot with boxes for yes, no or abstain. In addition to the election of directors and approval of the auditor. The final owner vote was as follows.

A Non-Binding Resolution to Approve the Compensation of the Company’s Named Executive Officers More Details

Vanguard has no role in this activity except to enable shareholders to quickly and easily exercise thee ownership role for persons who keep their stock with the brokerage firm. The owner must still make a judgement about their vote. Vanguard, which is owned by the investors in its mutual funds, is enabling corporate governance to be easily exercised for every publicly traded stock owned by its investors.

A Second Example

Dear Charles,

Voting is now open in this year’s elections for the Harvard University Board of Overseers and for Elected Directors of the Harvard Alumni Association (HAA). You may vote online or by paper ballot.

By voting , you can help shape Harvard’s future. Please take the time to learn about the candidates and vote.

The vote now link goes to a sign-in that includes name, college identifier and my unique registration number. Once entered the complete ballot and candidate information is listed. This same information , ballot and a return envelope is also mailed to every graduate.

A Credit Union Example

Dear Charles,
We are conducting the 2026 Annual Meeting by Electronic Transmission as provided in Section 411 of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Patelco Credit Union effective April 28, 2017 (the “Bylaws”).

The Annual Meeting will be hosted by video conference on April 30, 2026, at 5pm PT.

Registration is required to attend

We welcome you to join us and take this opportunity to submit questions in advance. To register, please send an email to annualmeeting2026@patelco.org no later than 11:59pm PT on Friday, April 24, 2026.

Matters requiring a vote

Please note that there is no new business to discuss. The only matter requiring a vote of the members in attendance is approval of the 2025 Annual Meeting minutes.

Patelco Credit Union 2026 list of candidates nominated

Board of Directors – Four (4) positions to be filled by acclamation of the Board of Directors as provided in the Bylaws:

Collen Cabey
3-year term
Debra Chaw
3-year term
Vickie Rath
3-year term
Jesse Rivera
3-year term

Section 501(D) of the Patelco Credit Union Bylaws provides “If no more nominations for vacant positions are received than the number of vacant positions, the credit union may, without further action, declare that those nominated and qualified to be elected are elected.” Four candidates have been nominated to fill the four open Director seats. Therefore, the Directors nominated will be approved by acclamation of the Board of Directors as provided by the Bylaws.

The close of this email is two paragraphs of general programs and services from CEO Erin Mendez beginning with these words:

As we move into 2026 and prepare to celebrate Patelco’s 90th anniversary, our mission remains clear . . .

This Official Notice of the Annual Meeting, has no Vote Now or register here links. An owner must email to register, and then annual meeting details will be available for download after April 13.

Democracy, Due Process and Member Trust

Across most organizations which claim to be member or shareholder owned, the appearance of democratic practice is an important part of their public character and responsibility.

Harvard University has been under constant attack since the first month’s of the Trump administration. Yet it has a continuing campaign to have its several hundred thousand graduates vote for the most important leadership roles in the corporation.

Vanguard did not have to facilitate the ability of shareholders whose company stock is kept at the brokerage. But it does this as a service which facilitates the most important duty of shareholders, probably in the hundreds of thousands of emails pevery month.

Voting is both a trust and a confidence builder by an organization’s leadership with its most critical constituency-the owners. It is also a legal responsibility underlying owner governance at the annual meeting.

But appearance may have no substance supporting the process. Patelco’s efforts to prevent any normal or meaningful interaction by owners is clearly stated. Director succession is completely controlled by the board. It is a leadership group that seems unwilling or even afraid to interact with its member-owners. This process is not a confidence builder for Patelco’s leadership or the persons it serves.

When democratic processes have no substance, the other leadership model that prevais is rule by authority. That approach is not one that respects the role of its member-owners or creates a common bond of enthusiasm and support.

Are the public reputations of Vanguard and Harvard due, in part, to their active encouragement of democratic participation by their constituents?

Of all the democratically designed organizations in America, one would hope that the values-based, cooperative system’s better angels might be a shining example.

April 1, 2026April 1, 2026

Two Reactions to AI’s Challenge

Yesterday’s post on AI’s promises and dangers, prompted two responses.

One is a personal reflection by a dedicated AI user and one from an organizational point of view based on NCUA’s application. Ironically both reach a similar conclusion about the ongoing need for human insight.

An AI User’s Perspective

(by Lara Hoyen, my daughter, posted on LinkedIn)

I felt an urge today to write down my thoughts today.

I didn’t want AI to help, though I regularly ask for assistance. To script a tough conversation with a co-worker. To translate an interview transcript into a compelling blog post. To summarize a 15 year story into a compelling couple of paragraphs.

Recently Claude’s been unlocking even more for me. I’m able to clean up years of data files and create interactive dashboards. I’ve launched webforms to standardize inputs. I’ve automated weekly email reports with project status changes.

These types of tools used to have to wait until they could move from a backlog into a sprint. Then my data team co-workers could built it.

A recent Harvard Business School study found that power users of AI, rather than being freed by AI, are busier. It intensifies their workload because they can take on broader responsibilities. The article talked about AI users experiencing “Brain Fry,” with symptoms such as mental fog and decreased focus.

This describes exactly how I’m feeling.

I’m reading to seek wisdom as I consider my response to the political upheaval that is impacting our nation, community, and neighbors. Hannah Reichel’s devotional, “For Such a Time as This,” describes the Christian church’s response to the rise of Hitler in Germany as a way to give perspectives and inspiration to Americans today. She writes about the power of letters shared between dissidents. For those that wrote them and received them, these messages helped to “clarify their thoughts, name their realities, and strengthen their resolve.”

I want to make sure I don’t lose these abilities. To reflect, apply, synthesize.

Even as I see the amazing opportunities that AI is unlocking for a resource-strapped NGO (and 501 C 3) with more work to do than people to do it.

Ann Lamott, an author I love, released a book recently on improving your writing. She explained that the power of communicating, is how we “awaken to life and to beauty… our own huge creative and imaginative spirits.” She laments that we should “stop hitting snooze… look around, breath it in, and scribble it down.”

That’s why I needed to write this post.

I wanted to reflect on the risk I face of inadvertently outsourcing my thinking to AI vs. using it as a smart assistant. I wanted to name the impact I am experiencing cognitively because of my use of these tools. And, I want to strengthen my resolve, as an antidote to these consequences, to walk through each day mindfully – noticing, reflecting, sharing, and connecting.

I’d love to hear your practices that keep you human, as you work with AI. And, where you’re seeking wisdom for such a time as this.

AI’s Organizatinal Impact & NCUA’s Example

(from RAndy Karnes, retired CEO, CU*Amswers)

What we miss in AI is that behind it all is a systemic approach to learn. Some one or thing said learn like this! Practice and learn some more. Why AI will not become the most effective teaching template for future generations is not much talked about.

While it might be difficult to teach higher functions, the basics should be simple.

And the NCUA’s oversite/audit functions should be childs play if they would apply the logic to:

1. Inventory required input and content. (eg. exams, data, regulations)

2. Summarize the content for norms amd exceptions.

3. Score the norms and exceptions.

4. Make recommendations to accelerate positive outcomes and adjust to exceptions.

If one day we want to compete with AI intellectually as a teacher and simply avoid work by just accepting its outcome – we first must teach ourselves the instant insight we seek.

Child’s play like the NCUA’s work at this point, will not be a stumbling block for credit union futures. That work we must learn to do ourselves.

March 4, 2026March 4, 2026

Washington Post Opinion on Taxing Credit Unions

With exquisite timing during this week’s credit union GAC convention, the Washington Post published an opinion article with the title:TARGETING THIS $2.8 TRILLION TAX SHELTER COULD SOLVE A BIG U.S. PROBLEM

The opinion was authored by Scott Hodge, described as a tax policy fellow and past president of the Tax Foundation.

Hodge provides multiple examples of successful tax exempt, very profitable organizations such as AARP, the Academy of Arts and Science, the Kaiser Foundation Hospital system and the PGA as fellow travelers in the tax exempt panoply of unfair competitors.

Here is Hodge’s paragraph singling out the credit union exemption:

With more than $2.3 trillion in assets, the tax-exempt credit union industry has long outgrown its depression-era roots. Originally exempted to serve working-class people of “small means” who lack access to banking, credit unions are now indistinguishable from commercial banks. They offer mortgages, auto loans, credit cards and investment services—and they’re using tax free cash to buy banks. In the past decade, credit unions have purchased nearly 100 commercial banks, converting taxpaying businesses into tax-exempt ones. Imagine Gold’s Gym buying your local YMCA.

His example of coops buying banks has logic and common sense. As one observer has stated:

I’d invite anyone willing to discuss the original purpose of credit unions and why neither the FED, OCC nor the FDIC wanted to regulate them.

Short answer: Credit Unions are not banks. They are member-owned cooperatives created as a safety net and alternative to banks. As a result, credit unions were granted nonprofit status, were not taxed, and were placed under social services

But would that be a sufficient response to this recurring threat?

History of the Tax Exemption

State chartered credit unions received their federal tax exemption via an IRS ruling. FCU’s are tax exempt in the Federal Credit Union Act. One consequence of these two processes is that some states have passed franchise or other taxes on state charters. Another critical difference is public disclosures. State charters must file an annual IRS 990 with facts on salaries and benefits of highly compensated employees and list all charitable donations and political contributions.

Coops’ special service purpose was endorsed by FDR in this 1936 note to the Treasury Secretary. The Pesident encourages publicity for these new institutions, supervised bythe Department of Agriculture, saying they are popular.

In the modern era of an Independent NCUA regulator, the agency’s first two board chairs were not hesitantin their support of credit unions’ tax status. (photo from 1981. left to right Larry Connell, PA Mack, Ed Callahan )

Today’s NCUA board has been agnostic on credit unions’ tax exemption saying the issue is up to Congress. This is similar to Board’s silence on the bank purchases referenced in the Post opinion even though NCUA approval is required for every transaction,.

How the Tax Exemption Formed the industry

For the first 100 years of credit union formation, all were started with no financial capital with minimal share donations by the organizers. Today NCUA requires at least $500,000 in equity to receive a charter, but that is not how 99% of active credit unions today achieved their net worth.

Until NCUA insurance was required for all FCU’s in 1970, member shares were equity, ranking last in payout priority in the event of failure. One of CUNA’s concerns about a federal insurance program was that it would reduce members’ ownership attention.

During the bank holiday in FDR’s first year in office when many customers lost savings due to bank closures, credit unions noted that not a single state charter failed in this period. There were no FCU’s until 1934; but just like the states, all member shares were at risk.

Federal share insurance was not passed because of member losses or credit union failures. Rather it was a reward for performance that demonstrated member shares were as safe as insured deposits in banks. It was not untill the mid-1980’s that the Public Accounting Standards Board classified credit union shares as liabilities and not equity in GAAP presentationa.

The Imposition of Bank Capital Concepts

Even after multiple coop share insurance programs were available, until passage of the Credit Union Member Access Act (CUMAA) in 1998, reversing a Supreme Court interpretation of NCUA’s field of membership rule, credit union capital adequacy was determined on a flow, or earnings set aside requirement.

Net worth was created by allocating 6% of income into a statutory regular reserve account until that total was at least 4% of risk assets. At that level, the transfer was lowered to 5% until a ratio of 6% of risk assets (primarily loans) was achieved. Retained earnings were on top of this required capital account. The tax exemption on net income was a critical factor in coop net worth build up.

A 6% ratio of total net worth to assets was considered well-capitalized. However CUMAA changed the capital creation from a coop model to a banking concept. Now the required ratio was determined by the amount of capital on hand at any point in time versus the flow of earnings into reserves. To be well-capitalized credit unions needed to have at least 7% net worth at all times.

For almost 100 years the tax exemption was critical to building total capital. This was the sole source of credit union bet worth. This process took time before startups could become financially self sufficient without sponsor support or location and convenience advantages.

Member loyalty was the intangible but essential foundation because reserve accumulation could take a generation or more to become self-sustaining. Growing a credit union’s balance sheet from 1998 was now internally governed by the credit unions growth of equity, or ROE.

The Financial Ethos Today- CEO’s Born on Third Base

In his brief history of FCU supervision, Ancin Cooley points out (link) how this founding role of credit unions has been eroded as the founders and builders have left the scene.

Few CEO’s today have had to worry about building capital and ROE performance. There is no external market accountability as there is no stock to be valued and traded. The industry’s average capital ratio is 11%, far above the 7% well capitalized rule requirement. Risk based capital measures are even greater.

Most newly hired or promoted CEO’s, especially in the three decades since CUMAA in 1998, are unaware of how the wealth legacy they now direct was built by generations of member loyalty.

A baseball metaphor for this historical blind spot of incoming CEO’s is useful: “Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple.”

And so the focus of these newcomer CEO’s, often with board blessing, is how to take the credit union to a new institutional level. Not how to enhance the well-being of the member-owners whose relationships were the unique foundation of cooperative success.

Excess capital makes the allure and seeming ease of purchasing banks or other third party assets, and moving beyond community to a financial intermediary, a ready breakout strategy. With the help of brokers and financial consultants the option is hard to resist. Organic growth seems so common place and difficult versus using surplus funds to acquire assets originated by others.

Instead of fulfilling cooperative purpose, the acquisition or ‘”transfer of control” (mergers) of eternal assets becomes the go-to success tactic. A coterie of consultants, lawyers, financial agents and lobbyists will facilitate these instant growth possibilities.

Responding to the Tax Exempt Challenge

Today GAC attendees will hear urgent appeals for political action protecting the credit union tax exemption. But is that the best framing of the challenge?

Should the question intead be, if our organization were to taxed, would that change our mission? If the answer is yes, then maybe the first response is to discuss whether the vision-mission statement needs a review.

And secondly, what changes are needed for credit unions to continue their unique role for members, their community and in the overall financial markets whatever the tax status?

February 11, 2026February 11, 2026

Will NCUA’s Journey Be From Chartering a COOP Movement to a Regulatory Dead End?

What kind of financial regulator would be most effective to carry on the purpose of the credit union system stated in the FCU ACT? (see note on Congressional purpose at end)

Should the credit union system be overseen by a regulator of cooperatives or of financial institutions?

The arc of federal regulation from 1934 to today is simple. The federal regulator evolved from the role of chartering, promoting and supervising cooperatives to just another financial supervisor safeguarding an insurance fund.

The coop design is unique in American financial options. The users are the sole owners of the service. The intent was to create shared community resources not private wealth. The structure was to be perpetual with the common equity always “paid forward” to benefit future generations.

Moreover, financial soundness was underwritten by this shared purpose of borrowers and savers. Governance was democratic–each member-owners had one vote. No proxies.

The Impact of NCUSIF On Coop Regulation

The turning point in cooperative regulation was the 1970 passage of a federal deposit insurance (NCUSIF) option modeled after the FDIC and FSLIC. The banking funds were created in the early 1930’s in response to the “banking holiday” failures in the depression. The nascent state chartered credit union movement had no such system failures. Deposit insurance was not part of the FCU act passed in 1934. It wasn’t needed.

The need for the NCUSIF was much debated by credit unions in the lated 1960’s. CUNA opposed the option arguing such an institution would eventually dominate the system’s functioning. A new trade association, NAFCU, was formed to lobby for and pass this federal option for cooperatives.

The NCUSIF was not created because of system failures. Rather it was a recognition that cooperatives, while different in design, were just as safe as any for-profit banking option.

As NCUSIF insurance spread, so did federal regulation mimicking other banking regulations.

From Cooperative Partner to Financial Overseer

When implementing deregulation from 1981-1985, NCUA Chairman Callahan asserted credit unions were unique. The so-called level playing field arguments, he believed, would undermine the cooperative advantages of member-ownership.

Callahan believed regulations should promote cooperative purpose and collaborative actions. Both tenets were key tp the financial restructure of the NCUSIF and achieving 100% credit union participation in the unique CLF’s-coop system liquidity partnership.

But the bureaucratic pull of Washington prompted later NCUA leaders to emulate the example and practices of banking regulators. Safety and soundness, not member service, became the regulator’s mantra.

Both NCUA and credit unions sought Congressional hearing seats at the tables with the titans of America’s financial services.

Today NCUA has copied banking regulators with rules such as risk-based capital and, expanding market sources of capital. New charters are non-existent. Cooperative purpose is never mentioned in supervisory priorities.

NCUA oversight has fluctuated between laissez faire (let the free market decide) to embracing the administration’s political ideology from DEI to government downsizing.

The absence of any reference to coop design is that there is no protection for for member-owner rights or their collective savings. NCUA like the banking regulators has reduced their oversight to merely offering a $250,000 payout in the event of institutional failure.

This neglect of member-owners’ rights has resulted in boards staying in power perpetually. Owners are kept out of any governance or voting role. Bylaws are modified with NCUA approval to prevent member initiatives. Boards and CEO’s feel free to take a credit union’s business model and its billions in legacy assets in any direction they choose.

Transparency for cu leaders’ conduct is non-existent. Director fiduciary duties flouted. Accountability for outcomes occurs only after a financial crisis. Then the system’s leadership shortcomings are quickly swept under the rug via mergers.

When new CEO’s arrive from outside the coop system, often former for-profit financial professionals, they bring their prior experiences with them. They act like teenagers given a new high-powered formula 1 car. With board assent, they jump into the driver’s seat and try to see how fast they can make their new institution grow.

The NCUA’s Future

Today NCUA acts and sounds like the other banking regulators. Credit unions applaud the Trump adminisration policy of government tear down and relaxed o exam oversight. NCUA appears alongside the other financial overseers in Congressional hearings, states all is well, and makes no effort to describe how the tax exempt coop system is fulfilling any public duty.

The consequence is that credit unions no longer see their organization as part of an interdependent financial system. Institutional success is celebrated versus cooperative’s ability to create better financial solutions for those who have the least or know the least about personal finances.

Individual credit union priorities look more and more like capitalist business plans. They attempt to acquire, not support their peers, via merger takeovers. If that fails, just buy a bank.

With self-perpetuating board oversight, regulatory withdrawal, no transparency about transfers using tens of millions of member-owners’ capital, the cooperative system may lack the capacity for self-correction. Industry hegemony, not cooperative purpose, becomes the institution’s endgame.

How much longer will Congress or public policy think tanks not pose the existential questions: Why does America need a financial system that emulates its competitors, but with a tax exemption? Will NCUA become part of Treasury’s financial oversight, just like the OCC? Why have two federally managed deposit insurance funds that provide the same function?

“It Makes No Sense:” One Analyst’s Assessment

Yesterday’s post gave a brief history of federal regulatory evolution, It tracked the various federal governmental departments that shepard credit union’s evolution. And subsequent events under NCUA as an independent agency. This is that author, Ancin Coolley’s concern, about where the coop movement stands today.

When you read credit union regulatory history and go back to the arguments, it keeps bringing me to this point: the FDIC and other agencies did not want credit unions. And it calls to mind the question, why did they not want them?

They did not want them because credit unions were not treated the same way as other financial institutions. They were viewed as something that drifted into a social-services posture.

And honestly, the more I dig into the history and the legal history, the more it feels like I’m finding out Santa Claus isn’t real. The more I learn about the lack of standing for members in court, and the reality that there’s often no remedy for members against directors who effectively give away capital, the more disorienting it feels.

It’s like there’s the reality I want to believe in, and then there’s the legal reality of what a credit union actually does.

And what I can’t even begin to reconcile conceptually is this: credit unions want to maintain their tax exemption while also purchasing banks. In good conscience, I can’t even argue against someone who says, “How are you going to maintain your tax exemption if you’re buying a bank, when you were originally given a tax exemption for not being a bank?”

It makes absolutely no sense.

Editor’s Note on Cooperative Purpose:

Congress added the following language to the Federal Credit Union Act on August 7, 1998.

The text was included as part of the Congressional Findings in Section 2 of Public Law 105–219, also known as the Credit Union Membership Access Act.

This specific language was crafted to affirm the Mission and reassert that credit unions serve people of “modest means.”

The Congress finds the following:

The American Credit Union movement began as a cooperative effort to serve the productive and provident credit needs of individuals of modest means.
Credit unions continue to fulfill this public purpose, and current members and membership groups should not face divestiture from the financial services institution of their choice as result of recent court action.
To promote thrift and credit extension, a meaningful affinity and bond among members, manifested by a commonality of routine interaction, shared and related work experiences, interests, or activities, or of an otherwise well understood sense of cohesion or identity is essential to the fulfillment of the public mission of credit unions.
Credit unions, unlike many other participants in the financial services market, are exempt from Federal and most state taxes, because they are member-owned, democratically operated, not-for-profit organizations generally managed by volunteer boards of directors and because they have the specified mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means.
Improved credit union safety and soundness provisions will enhance the public benefit that citizens receive from these cooperative financial services institutions.

February 9, 2026February 10, 2026

Can Credit Unions Buy Their Way to Success?.

For the first 75 years of credit union history, member, share and asset growth was from internal, “organic “ business efforts versus external acquisitions.

Some of the factors requiring this approach were regulation, field of membership limits, the absence of external capital or liquidity, and the cooperative design’s “local” advantage.

After deregulation of financial services became government policy in the 1980’s, many of these constraints were modified. Growth options expanded. FOM regulations were broadened. New membership strategies such as indirect lending were introduced. Credit union leaders expanded their market ambitions.

Purchasing New Accounts

Today many credit union strategies involve both organic and external acquisition growth tactics.

This market bidding for new members is illustrated by financial institutions’ multiple offers for new checking accounts. Here are some recent cash bounties sent to me:

From an airline credit card issuer:

As a valued Chase customer we’re thanking you with an up to $900 offer. Open a new Chase total Checking account and the new Chase Savings account with qualifying business activities.

One of my credit unions emailed this offer:

Dear Charles,

You can still earn up to $100 when you open a new Patelco Checking and Money Market account. Here’s how.

USAA’s post card appeal had this headline; $400 Cash Bonus. The offer: When you apply for and open your first USAA Classic Checking account and receive a qualifying direct deposit. Offer is nontransferable.

A new local bank, Atlantic Union, promised a $400 welcome bonus in three easy steps.

Open a checking account.
Set up direct deposit.
Collect you $400 bonus.

Not to be outdone, PenFed offers up to $300 for opening a new checking account with a qualified deposit. To receive the full $300 requires an initial $20,000 deposit. The average daily balance must remain above this amount for five months to receive the $300.

Can Credit Unions Win These Bidding Battles?

Indirect auto loans illustrate the ultimate challenge of external asset purchases. Can these new customers be converted to loyal members. Or is the transacton a one and done event?

Before deregulation the credit union option was itself compelling. Word of mouth was the most common marketing effort. Credit union membership was thought to be a valuable benefit.

One proof of this belief is the many times members moved away from a job or their community, but chose to retain their credit union affiliation-just in case I need it.

In what some CEO’s view as a commoditized financial services arena, the quickest way to grow is to go buy it. These efforts include third party loan originations, purchasing individual participations, acquiring whole banks and the ever present offers to merge facilitated by golden parachutes for the selling CEO.

Is offering a better price sustainable?

Will these “bonus” pricing strategies result in long term loyalty?

What is the Coop Competitive Advantage?

Buying growth seems easy at first. The costs and immediate increases in size are seen. The longer term question of whether these relationships last, is down the road.

The tactics of purchasing initial market success raises important questions:

Does cooperative design, other than the federal tax exemption, give the credit unions a competitive advantage in these price/bonus competitions?
Does acquisition of new accounts via third parties result in new member relationships, or a temporary lift?
If growth via acquisition becomes an important strategic effort, does a cooperative’s internal capability for organic market efforts atrophy?

Buying growth is not a unique market capability. It is very visible and easy. Just call up a broker or other third party originator. The real work of relationship building just begins with the booking.

Purchasing growth is constrained by internal resources and market competition. Is attracting new members with a better price the best way to present the cooperative value advantage?

Learning from the Past

The capabilities and reputation that created a $2.3 trillion ciiperative financial system today were built on a foundation of multiple factors. These included convenience, personal service, local familiarity and a fair price. All wrapped in values centered on collective community care.

The challenge of creating real organizational value is ever present. The answers are not simple and often unique to a credit union’s situation and leadership skills.

The response is not to go back to a prior era or model. Rather it is a simple lesson from generations of coop success. If an organization wants to be a credit union, then it must decide to be one. Not perfect, but at least good. America has plenty of banks.

P.S. Here is a case study published by CUDaily of a credit union expansion effort based on credit union advanages: Why a California Credit Union Intro’d a New Digital Brand in Georgia.

February 5, 2026February 5, 2026

What Are Credit Union Schools Teaching?

One of the important collaborative efforts is the system of credit union professional courses. These multi-year commitments are preparing junior staff members for leadership roles in their careers.

I received the following note from a person attending one of the oldest and largest of these programs:

I am in my third and final year at Western Credit Union Management school. In working on my final project, I came across a past high honors project that I wanted to share with you.

It details one larger credit union’s growth strategy through mergers and acquisitions. What is particularly interesting is how they view the Small Credit Union category, which they define as $500 million and less.

“A very desirable new market or a significant new strategic capability would need to be evident for our cedit union to consider a merger with a small credit union. Otherwise, the operational disruption would not be worth it.”

She attached the full project of almost 200 pages. It is very professionally done. Well organized, lots of data, tables and clear presentation strucure. The student’s own credit union is analyzed with a SWOT framework. Various consultant views are offered and footnoted.

Mergers and acquisitions are just one of five goals to try to restart the credit union’s slowing member growth.

I did not thoroughly read the entire thesis. My question would be who is providing feedback on these major academic efforts?

For the work is filled with data and other documentation, current in its references, and logical in the recommendations.

I did not study all the points. It is written from an institutional perspective. I did not see any reference to two areas: credit union system’s future as a unique alternative for members, and what parts of the consumer market are in most in need of cooperative solutions. Growth was the goal.

The thesis is a well written document that should be used as a starting point, not a final plan of what this credit union aspires to be. Who are the readers and evaluators for these academic exercises?