Category: Co-ops in Capitalism

Posted on

Credit Union Mergers: A Game without Rules

 

Part III

Previous parts I and II have provided a factual review how FCCU’s CEO and board chair diverted $12 million to their control via a new organization when merging the credit union.  While this example is discouraging, it is symptomatic of a much broader challenge for credit unions.

A Game Without Rules

The FCCU/Valley Strong merger is a current and common example of the private, insider deal making around mergers of successful, long serving institutions.   The CEO’s and boards arranging  these transactions put their self-interest and ambitions ahead of their member owners.  Their actions are covered with rhetorical reasons about scale, technology investments and competition threats.

CEO Duffy’s skill at deflecting any criticism is shown by how he positions those  whose official duty and/or fiduciary roles would be to protect and ensure the members’ best interests to support his action.

His board of five, on which he sits, had to approve the merger.  They are all given subsequent sinecures.  The senior staff who might have aspired to succeed in leadership is guaranteed bonuses and jobs in the continuing firm-at higher salaries and lesser responsibility (legacy ambassador vs COO).   The lawyers and accountants dutifully earn their fees for blessing the numbers and  transactions.  Like the trade associations, no one wants to lose a paying client.

And those in the community who lost their home- grown 66-year old cooperative, are not going to bite the hand that gave them an occasional handout (usually $1,000) or annual political  donation.

Two Members Said:  The Emperor Has No Clothes

To oppose someone in authority with literally millions in resources to fight back requires persons with more than insight, it takes unusual courage.

This merger confirms the modern day reality of Hans Christian Andersen’s most memorable fairy tale.   And the tale’s relevance is even more appropriate as shown by newspaper accounts of “banker” Duffy’s recent Stocksonian award. Both “leads” open by describing his  professional appearance, “looking dapper in a gray, tartan-style suit and stripped red bow tie.”

But just as in the fairy tale, the two members saw the CEO’s plan had no substance.  And they said so out loud, so all could see.  But no one wanted to note the obvious.  Here are their names, excerpts of some of their concerns, comments and questions as recorded in the CU Today story from NCUA’s website.

A  FCCU member,  Larry Matulich,  posted his objection on NCUA’s website in part as follows:

I am against the merger for several reasons.  I feel we must protect the financial stability of our local credit union. The loan to asset ratio of Valley Strong is 3 times the loans to total assets, while FCCU is only 20% of our loans to assets.  We do not need their loans, but they do need our assets.   Let’s protect  our money and keep it here in San Joaquin County.  Frankly the real strong credit union is not Valley Strong, but our FCCU. . .

A second member Frederick Butterworth posted in part:

Vote No on the proposed merger until the provision to transfer $10 million of member assets to a non-profit foundation for “community outreach” is eliminated from the proposal.  Member financial assets of any amount, especially of any amount, especially $10 million , should not be given away for any purpose.  If Financial Center Credit Union is so flush with cash that it wants to give  away $10 million, then that amount sould be distributed to the members.  I’ve written twice asking for the rationale for given away $10 million.  They have failed to answer me.  . . The so-called FCCU2 Foundation was created less than two months ago setting uup Duffy in his new give-away-our-asseets role. . .

Both saw that the rhetoric promoting the event was not supported by the facts.  Other employees and members knew these realities, but Duffy managed to outmaneuver any scrutiny, even by the regulators.

Regulatory Neglect Is Not Benign

This week NCUA announced the banning of a former president/CEO from forever participating in the affairs of a federally insured financial institution. This CEO’s misdeed was that between 2018 and 2020 she used the credit union’s credit card for personal purchases “totaling more than $12,000.”

In FCCU2’s foundation setup, the diversion for personal use was first announced as $10 million. But when the deed was finally reported to the IRS, an additional $2.0 million was added to total $12 million.

When asked, NCUA’s anonymous defense in the  CU Today story was this transfer is “a business decision left up to the credit union’s board of directors.” And further on, “ultimately in a voluntary merger (this action) is up to the members themselves.” When asked to explain its oversight, NCUA shows a regulatory middle finger to every FCCU member by stating “86% voted in favor of the merger.”

Moreover this reference to  a supposedly democratic process demonstrates how disconnected from on the ground realities NCUA leadership is.

Duffy has been politically adroit placing the regulators between himself  and his self-dealing with the members’ money.  “Duffy said neither the NCUA nor the DFI raised any red flags over the transfer of the $10 million to the foundation.  There was nothing to question.” For NCUA to followup now, it would first have to investigate itself-what it already knew.  An internal review  few organization’s leaders are capable of doing.  Rather it may require a congressional hearing or a CNN story.

It was NCUA itself that described multiple situations of self dealing and failure of fiduciary responsibility by boards and CEO’s in approving its merger regulation.  If either NCUA or DFI had bothered to look under the covers, it would find this merger violated one of the oldest rule on the books: thou shalt not steal.

Consequences and a Solution

Credit unions compete in a capitalistic system described by the fictional character Gorden Gekko as fueled by self-interest: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. It captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upsurge of mankind.”

The temptations are all around, even for member-owned coops.

At all levels of this process, the members’ trust and confidence have been violated.  In so doing, the cooperative reputation of thousands of credit unions that serve their members every day with commitment and purpose is stained.

Instead of stockpiling excess capital as done by FCCU, hundreds of credit unions pay special dividends explaining,” Our annual giveback bonus is what differentiates us from a typical bank.”

The system’s overall safety and soundness is lessened when more eggs are put into a single basket.

Everyone connected to this transaction loses something. The 29,000 members, their credit union; the city of Stockton a 66-year long relationship with a locally-owned financial cooperative.

Valley Strong’s senior management and Board, seduced by the prospect of adding $634 million in assets and free capital of $100 million, are now struggling when the tide of free money went away.  They thought the only cost would be several years FCCU executive salaries and $2.5 million in donations to the Duffy fund.  But nothing is free in life.  Valley Strong’s CEO,  will now have to knuckle down and run a credit union versus buying up others’ assets.

Credit unions’ public reputation as member-first organizations is contradicted by these facts. And the regulators’ conduct exposed as supervisors who “have no clothes.”

Duffy’s endgame benefitted him and some of his closest enablers.  But they will learn giving away other people’s money is a losing game when the funding drys up and the lights turned off.

Is There A Cure?

The only bright light in this case are the two members who spoke up with the truth about the event.  The solutions must empower the members with information and total transparency so that they are not just mere bystanders.

The single most important reform that would change the whole process, is to require that a minimum of 25% (or more) of members must vote in any election to end a sound credit union’s charter.

Today a minority, usually in the single digits, bother to vote.  And a smaller minority actually approve  charter surrender.  In a democratic process, presumably a majority should approve transferring their collective wealth to another party.  But in credit unions a minority of members, and and even smaller group can approve 100% or total transfer of value for everyone.

According the FCCU’s certification of the vote sent to NCUA, only 9% (2,680) of the 29,672 members voted.  Of this amount just 7.7% of all members supported giving up the charter.  Compare this with NCUA’s characterization of 86% of voters “in favor of the merger.”

Transparency and Options Create a Truly Free Market

First, much fuller disclosures should be mandatory.  All of the documents required by NCUA in their review should be part of the public record for every member to see.  All contracts for future service for any employee or board member should be public.  If an FCU is involved, they should be required to disclose the same information as a SCU files in the IRS 990.

Second, all credit union members should have a choice to take their pro-rata share of accumulated capital and close their account if the merger is approved.

Third, once the disclosures are public, members should have the opportunity to seek proposals from other credit unions who would be willing to make better offers.

Fourth,  merger agreements should include specific performance objectives so members can track whether the value promised has in fact been delivered.  For example lower operating expenses, increased loan or savings opportunities, enhanced delivery options and their usage.

Fifth, the board of the continuing credit union should be required to report to all members at the annual meeting the impact of the merger on the institution after the first 12 and 24 months.

Mergers today are the wild west of credit union activity.  They are marketed by intermediaries offering to facilitate the benefits for the selling institution and the niceties of the regulatory process–for a share of the action.

Duffy’s example is not an exception, albeit the foundation was a unique creation. Rather with no rules, everyone feels entitled to whatever they can get.

In a true market this insider dealing would not happen.  For example when credit unions buy banks, the deal is often very public and the benefits to the bank’s owners very clear.

Just this week Beacon Credit Union announced that it planned to acquire Mid-Southern Savings bank for $45.1 million in cash.  The bank’s total capital at third quarter 2023 was $28.9 million for a sale premium of 150% of book for all the bank’s owners.

In the official Member Notice Duffy and the FCCU board sent to members announcing the mrger, the headline under the credit union’s name reads: Better than a Bank.  Except when it comes to selling out the charter and all capital in return for nothing but promises and future charity.

Posted on

The Pied Piper of Group 209,  or What Happened to the FCCU Members’ $10 Million? (Part I)

On January 26, 2022 I wrote a detailed analysis of the transfer of $10 million of members’ capital to a non profit organized by the CEO and Chair of the merging Finance Center Credit Union.  My position was that this was an improper taking of funds owned by the members, but asked,  “You be the judge.”

This is a followup analysis since the October 1, 2021 merger and funds transfer.

Synopsis:  Part I  summarizes previous events and questions raised about the money transfer.  Articles provide principals’ various explanations in  a CU Today story.

Part II presents the new Foundation’s data subsequent to the merger and former CEO Duffy’s activities as recently as January 2024.

Part III asks what happens now?

 Looking Back at the Merger Issue

Stockton’s (area code 209) Need for Credit Union Services

In the words of the CEO of a local community food kitchen for the needy, “Stockton is not a destination city.”  Its population of 322,000  residents is 42% Hispanic, 24% Asian, 19% non-Hispanic white and 13% black.  It is one the most racially diverse large cities in America, according to a U.S. News analysis based on 2020 census data.

It is not a wealthy city. Median household income is $71,612 and per capita, $29,095. (2022)  The poverty level is 15.6%.   And only 18% of the population over 25 years has a college degree.

The Stockton record summarized the city’s variable reputation in a November 2023 article:

“Stockton has topped another list and this time it’s not a bad thing.

“While Stockton’s long had a reputation of being one of America’s most miserable cities (thanks, Forbes), U.S. News & World Report is shining a positive light on Mudville.

“In its most recent report,  Stockton ranked among the best places to live in California. It ranked number thirteen, one spot below Visalia and one spot ahead of Bakersfield.”

Stockton was nationally recognized as one of the first cities in the country whose finances collapsed due, in large part, to unaffordable defined-benefit pension obligations.  This threatened its ability to deliver basic services like police protection.

The city is the ideal opportunity for a locally focused credit union.  The member needs are many.  And until October 1, 2021, this was Financial Center Credit Union’s (FCCU) long time home market. On that date the CEO and board transferred via merger all the credit union’s savings, loans, members and operational direction to Valley Strong CU whose main office is in Bakersfield, a city approximately 250 miles and a four hour drive away.

Setting Up the Transfer

On June 25, 2021 Chair Lopez and CEO Duffy of FCCU registered a non profit in California named FCCU2.   Forty two days later Chair Lopez signs the official Members’ Meeting Notice to merge FCCU into Valley Strong.  The Notice includes the transfer of $10 million to this newly established corporation, one of several merger disbursements members were asked to approve in the merger vote.

To my knowledge this transfer of member capital to the sole control of the former CEO and Board chair had never occurred.  It appeared to be a “taking  spoils” from the event. The amount, the singular nature of the transfer and the credit union’s prior five year downtrends under CEO Duffy raised the question of whether this money grab was proper.

CEO Duffy and his Sister Nora Stroh  had been the senior executives at the credit union since 1993.  At the merger date, the credit union had served the Stockton community for 66 years with Duffy as CEO for the final 22.   In the  years prior to the merger, the $635 million credit union recorded these trends:

  • A decline in loans outstanding from $176 million in December 2016, to just $102 million at the merger date. This is an annual negative growth of 10.3%.
  • Total members declined by 2,900 from December 2016 to the merger, a fall of over 2% per year. These declines in loans and membership were the exact opposite of the growth gains reported by all other segments of the credit union system.
  • Even with this decline in risk assets, the credit union continued  adding to reserves from earnings. The result was a net worth (capital) ratio of 20% at December 2018 and 17% in December 2020, nine months before the merger.  During this five years, the credit union at times reported a net worth/asset ratio of more than 100% of the loan/asset ratio.
  • In the IRS 990 filing for 2018, the three highest reported salaries of Duffy, CEO; Nora Stroh, COO; and Steve Liega, Accounting and Finance were a combined $3.1 million or 46.5% of all compensation for a staff of over 90 employees.

During this period of decline in members and loans, CEO Duffy maintained a high profile public image.  The credit union reported numerous local and statewide political donations and grants to area non profits in its annual 990 filings.

The Critique

In the years leading up to the 2021 merger,  CEO Duffy operated with the form, but not the substance, of a cooperative charter.  It was run as a family business promoting the public visibility of the CEO, versus the well-being of members.

My January 2022 post was called A Theft of $ 10 Million or Just Spreading Goodwill?  I provided multiple data points about the credit union’s loan and member decline, million dollar executive salaries, and net worth sometimes greater than 100% of the loan to asset ratio.

An example of Duffy’s personal PR efforts is a video from the Stockton Mayor’s office of a $1.0 million donation to Stockton Strong in 2020. The speakers state the money  is from the “employees of the credit union and the Michael P. Duffy Family Fund.”

The only credit union employee in the eleven minutes is Duffy. The video shows two mock checks of $100,000 each to charities feeding food insecure residents.  In the same year as this employees’ gift, the credit union’s outstanding loans declined by $40 million.

I can find no public reference to the Michael P. Duffy Family Fund in either California’s registrations or IRS 990 tax exempt filings.

CEO Duffy’s May 1, 2021 press release announcement of the merger included the following rationale:

As the CEO of Financial Center Credit Union for the past 21 years, my perspective on mergers has evolved . . . I have marveled at what credit unions of today’s scale can accomplish when they join forces . . . this merger is a true embodiment of the credit union industry’s cooperative mind-set. . . this merger represents a strategic partnership between two financially healthy, future focused credit unions committed to providing unparalleled branch access, digital access, and amazing service for the Members and the communities they serve.

There was no data or hard facts to support this sudden strategic insight. The only concrete future service promise in the Member Notice was  access to Valley Strong’s 19 branch offices which were an average of 250 miles from the former Stockton headquarters.

Press Followup of the $10 Million Question

CU Today published an extended story following up  the $10 million transfer to Duffy’s control.  The story, Leaders from Merged-Out Credit Union Head New Foundation, provides the participants’ explanations as follows:

The individuals involved in setting up the arrangement say it was approved by the regulators and is designed to fulfill the new merged-out credit union’s mission, while state and federal regulators issued vague statements saying no laws were violated and that the creation of the $10 million foundation was “a business decision” on the part of the credit union. 

Duffy’s specific defense of the $10 million was,  ”It’s not a diversion, but rather an investment in the communities it serves. This ensures that the funds will be used in the manner in which it was intended: to advance and support the needs of the members” 

When asked why it was not paid to members: “The board viewed its strategic decision through three lenses: members, team and community. . .It’s a symbiosis between the three and we wanted to continue the continuation while improving opportunities through cooperation vs competition.”

After Duffy’s twenty-eight years earning a living and achieving personal standing in Stockton,  he initiates the transfer of  $634 million total assets, $102 million in loans, 29,500 members and their $540 million of savings to another credit union’s control and leadership.  Prior to merger related adjustments, this “free” transfer also encompassed the members’ $107 million of capital.

Duffy kept control of $10 million in his words, “to advance and support the needs of members.”  After transferring all his leadership responsibility for managing  $634 million of member assets out of Stockton and away from local control (but keeping his CEO level compensation) he arranges to hold back $10 million for his personal use.  In order to serve the “needs of the members” he had just sold out!

Part II tomorrow will look at data and events since the merger.

 

Posted on

Threats to Coop Democracy

There is much public political rhetoric currently  expressed under the theme of “threats to democracy.”

But America’s democratic experiment is not just in our national or state voting processes.   Democracy is a civic practice that characterizes the governance  of the vast majority of organizations, public and private, across the country.

These more local institutions, including credit unions, are where we learn and practice what responsible citizenship means.   It can mean paying attention to leadership, organizational performance, voting when called upon, and supporting, when necessary, with our presence or money.

When money and power are at stake, especially in credit unions, those benefiting from positions of responsibility can be tempted to manipulate the democratic process for their advantage.

Lincoln’s Lyceum address before he had formally entered politics addressed the fragility of democratic design.   Parts of his speech  in the context of today’s events were quoted by Heather Cox Richardson in a recent column:

On January 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln rose before the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, to make a speech. Just 28 years old, Lincoln had begun to practice law and had political ambitions. But he was worried that his generation might not preserve the republic that the founders had handed to it for transmission to yet another generation. He took as his topic for that January evening, “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.”

Lincoln saw trouble coming, but not from a foreign power, as other countries feared. The destruction of the United States, he warned, could come only from within. “If destruction be our lot,” he said, “we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

Lincoln’s truth was that in democratic organizations, the greatest threat to sustainability is not external, but internal.

Lincoln’s last sentence above caught my attention.  The same word, suicide, was used in the final part of a blog Mike Riley wrote last summer. He was expressing concerns with specific credit union practices.  In a note of irony about his previous employer, NCUA’s role in these events, he closed with his inimitable sense of humor:

“If someone wants to commit suicide, it is a good thing if a doctor (i.e. NCUA)  is present.”

Democratic institutions survive not due to their special design, but rather because  leaders  believe and follow the values and processes required to sustain.

This week I will review events that are shaping the evolution of credit unions that are contrary to the principles implied by democratic governance.

Ignoring or overlooking our cooperative falls from grace is easy.  “It’s not my problem.”  But soon the examples of bad behavior and poor decisions become precedents for others.  These destructive events are not caused by outside competition; instead they reveal us becoming “authors” of our own finish.

Posted on

Credit Unions’ Origins versus Their Future Stories

As a state and federal regulator for eight years, credit union directors would sometimes come up during conferences to show me the original membership card in their wallet.  The important part was the number on the card.   Whether it was a single digit or other very low numeral, it validated the owner’s presence and belief at the cooperative’s founding.

Many credit unions summarize their beginning under the About section on their web sites.  The theme is that from a few committed persons and minimal dollars, see how far we have come today.

Jim Blaine presented the SECU (NC) founding story in a recent post.   A few excerpts provide you a flavor of his imitable style as he contrasts the official version with one member’s reality.

Creation stories are intended to provide us with an explanation and some reassurance that “stuff doesn’t just happen”. These stories are often called “creation myths”, or that fancy word “cosmogony”. . .

Folks at SECU for decades have gathered around the campfire to hear our creation story… “On June 4, 1937, 17 state employees and teachers in Raleigh pooled their meager resources of $437 to form State Employees’ Credit Union…” and the rest is history.  Sounds almost like a religion or cult following doesn’t it? Well, for some of us it is… 

But, as with most idealistic ventures, there is usually a back story. Way-back-when, I received an enlightening letter from long-time member Paul Wright. . .which begins:

“Back in 1932 I was a liquidating accountant for the State Banking Department. Mr. Gurney Hood was Commissioner of Banks and we had about 10 accountants and 12 or so bank examiners – all the banks were in trouble back then.”

You can read the specific impetus driving this unusual organizational effort in the full blog which concludes with Jim’s observation:

😎 Well, I did get a “kick” out of the letter and it did not in any way tarnish my belief in those “17 apostles”, with $437 who believed, with great purpose, that they could “capitalize on the character of their coworkers and help each other attain a better economic status.”

Wanted to share the “TRUE STORY” with you because today: 1) many credit unions – and one in particular – seem to have “forgotten” why they were created, 2) seem to have “forgotten” who they were created to serve, and 3) seem to have “forgotten” that most of their member-owners still often live in a “paycheck-to-paycheck”, “lend me $10 ’til payday” world of economic stress….… and of course, wanted to 4) remind the bankers that from its “creation” all SECU was ever trying to do was to save them from themselves… (still trying!)

Future Stories

History matters, whether factual or embellished by time and future events.  It gives perspective on present circumstances and hope for how we might envision future opportunities.

But sometimes the always changing events in which we live cause some to say they have had enough.  The forces driving the profession in which I labor are just too overwhelming.  I’m no longer comfortable and need to get out.

An example is the resignation last week of Harvard’s football coach of 30 years.   He had an extraordinary record as summarized in this article:

He ended his career with 200 wins, and, with a 17-9 victory over Dartmouth on Oct. 28, surpassed Yale’s Carm Cozza to set the record for Ivy League coaching wins. During his tenure, Harvard won 10 Ivy League titles and defeated the archival Yale Bulldogs 19 times, including nine straight from 2007-2015.

He also led the Crimson to three undefeated seasons — in 2001, 2004, and 2014 — leading Harvard to amass the sixth-best winning percentage in all of Division I football since 2000. Throughout his career, he won the New England Coach of the Year award eight times and was named a finalist for the Eddie Robinson Award — awarded to the top coach in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) — on five occasions.

So why did he retire, still young and in many ways at the top of his game?  The driving motivation was changes in the college football model, specifically paying players through the “name, image, likeness” opportunity.  Here is his blunt assessment:

“College football is changing dramatically and certainly not for the better,” Murphy said. “When people ask my opinion of what’s going on in college football, I give them a very simple explanation. It absolutely — positively — is professional football, only without any rules whatsoever.”

Some very successful credit union CEO’s and boards are voicing a similar lament about their industry.  The challenges are just too numerous: technology, regulation, changing competition, lack of volunteers, little member loyalty and of course ever pressing competition.

As they look ahead,  these CEO’s and boards give up and retire.  Change has made it too hard to continue even after demonstrated successes of 40, 50 or 80 years—it is time for them AND the credit union to go, in their future outlook.

Tomorrow I will share an example of one credit union’s “future story” after 66 years of stable and focused growth.  It determined  it wouldn’t be able to continue and had to merge to continue to serve members.

The difference between the Harvard football coach’s retirement and these credit union leaders is the credit union leaders decided to withdraw from the game.   Harvard will find a new coach who will want to tackle the challenges of competing in a time “of no rules.”

Also the credit union decided to give up and transfer all of their ample resources to another organization.  It would be similar to the Harvard athletic department confirming Coach Murphy’s insight and declaring, “From now on Harvard is not going to field a football team.  So just root for Yale or whatever school you prefer.  And any young men who might want to play, don’t apply to Harvard.”

The instances of credit union leaders closing up shop is becoming more widely presented as an acceptable strategy.  The decision is oblivious to whatever “creation story” the credit union told its generations of members who created the  bountiful legacy that is given away to outsiders who had no role in its success.  There is not even an effort to find a new coach.

The other disturbing aspect of these “future rationales” is that sometimes the leaders use the closure to enhance their own personal futures.  It would be like Coach Murphy deciding to take all of Harvard’s footballs and memorabilia with him when he leaves saying, I deserve this because I made it all happen.

A college, or for that matter any football team’s future, does not depend on a single coach or even player.   There is an institution, an organization, or even a league that supported the decades of every team’s individual efforts.  I believe it is time for these supporting organizations and their alumni to speak up.  The institutions they built to benefit future generations are being unilaterally shutdown.

 

 

 

Posted on

Will There Be a Credit Union in This Person’s Future?

Photo from a third generation credit union family.

However, will there be an option of a member-owned cooperative in her future?  Her mom and dad and grandparents have worked in credit unions for most of their professional lives.

This week  I will write about some of the internal challenges facing the movement.

Coincidentally,  Jim Blaine is beginning a series-Consider This– of forceful posts on what makes the credit unions unique.  It is a good primer for those who cannot attend a DEI week.

His first “chapter” in the series is called The Difference.  The next is The Difference is Real.  The third discusses “genericide” or The Kleenex Dilemma.  A brief excerpt:

What is “The Kleenex Dilemma” for SECU as a credit union? Like it or not, try as you might, when an SECU member is asked: “Where do you “bank”?, the member will invariably say “At the credit union!”  See the problem? The word “bank” owns the financial institution category in the mind of the public – and that probably is not going to change any time soon.

So, what has SECU done about the kleenex problem?. . .

His target audience is the entire SECU family, especially the board. These posts would be a helpful resource and live case study for any credit union volunteer-paid or unpaid, every industry regulator (especially NCUA) and of course the public.

If we want our children and grand children to  become  “member-owners” I hope Jim’s logic and some examples this week of wayward activity may “steady” the movement on its course.

 

Posted on

Credit Unions Top Users of Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP)

At the end of the September quarter, credit union total assets of $2.25 trillion were just 9.7% of total banking assets.  However their participation in the special emergency Federal Reserve lending program equaled 27% of the BEFP’s loans at yearend or three times their share of total assets.

The September 2023 call reports show 307 credit unions with Federal Reserve borrowings  of $34.9 billion, an average of  $114 million.  For these credit unions, the Federal Reserve represents 66% of their total borrowings.  For 112 of this group, the Federal Reserve is their only source.  The largest reported loan is $2.0 billion and two credit unions report draws of just $500,000 each.

In an ironical coincidence with the BTFP participation, this total was also 27% of all credit union borrowings at the quarter end of $130.3 billion.  Moreover this $35 billion was only a small portion of the reported $173.4 billion in total lines these credit unions  had established with  the Federal Reserve.

Most of these loans were drawn following the banking liquidity crisis in March.  The Fed created the  emergency Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) after the Silicon Valley Bank failure to prevent a system wide run by uninsured depositors on other depository institutions.

This facility was different from traditional Federal Reserve programs.  Eligible collateral security was expanded,  all collateral was valued at par, not market , and draws could go up to one year.  The rate for term advances under the Program is the one-year overnight index swap rate plus 10 basis points. The rate is fixed for the term of the advance on the day the line is drawn down.

What Happens Next?

In a January 9, 2024 speech to Women in Housing the Federal Reserve’s Vice Chairman  for Supervision, Michael Barr, was  asked about the program’s future when the initial one year life is over. Here are portions of his reply:

Moderator: I wanted to ask you about the future of the BTFP. We are rapidly approaching the one-year mark, is this something where the Fed is planning on extensions, or any information to be released to the public on usage?

Vice Chair for Supervision Barr:  So when the funding stress happened in March 2023, over the weekend the Federal Reserve, FDIC and Treasury agreed to a systemic risk exception to least cost resolution for the FDIC. And the Federal Reserve and the Treasury worked together to create an emergency lending program for banks and credit unions, the Bank Term Funding Program that you are referencing. And the Bank Term Funding Program enables banks to use collateral that was in place as of that time – as of March of 2023 – that is, essentially Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities, to pledge those, and to be able to get borrowing against that up to a year at the par value of those securities.

That program was really designed in that emergency situation. It was designed to address what in the statute is called unusual and exigent circumstances – you can think of it as an emergency. . .we want to make sure that banks and creditors of banks and depositors of banks understand that banks have the liquidity they need. And that program worked as intended. It dramatically reduced stress in the banking system very, very quickly. And deposit outflows which had been very rapid in that short period of time normalized to what had been going on before and in fact maybe flattened out to some extent a little bit.

So that program was highly effective, banks and credit unions are borrowing under that program today, but it was really set up as an emergency program. It was set up with a one-year timeframe, so banks can continue to borrow now all the way through March 11 of this year. . .a bank could continue to borrow or refinance under the program and in March of this year have a loan that then extends to March 2025. 

I expect continued usage until that end date of March 11, but it really was established as an emergency program for that moment in time.

Arbitrage Opportunity Grows Outstandings

Two days after Barr spoke, the Wall Street Journal published an update on the program: Banks Game Fed Rescue Program.

The article reported that the BTFP pricing, based on the benchmark interest  rates average  plus 10 basis points, was less than the 5.4%  the Fed was paying on overnight excess reserves. This arbitrage opportunity has resulted in an increase of  $12 billion in more drawdowns since yearend even though  no liquidity strains were apparent in either system.

Credit unions can request extensions up to one year until March 11, 2024.   After that date, the statement above and the most recent activity suggest the program will end.  Credit unions should plan to either repay or tap other sources of liquidity.

And the CLF?

It should be noted that the Central Liquidity Facility reports no loans this year as of its November financial statements.   In fact it has initiated no new loans since 2009. The BTFP participation suggests credit unions certainly have liquidity needs. However  the CLF, designed to serve and funded totally by credit unions, is not as responsive as the Federal Reserve Banks.

 

 

Posted on

A Lesson from the Latest FDIC Premium Assessments on Banks

Last Friday the four largest banks in American announced their  4th quarter and full year financial results.

All had one new, significant expense in the 4th quarter.  Here are the numbers from the New York Times article: Biggest Banks Earn Billions, Even after Payments to the FDIC Fund-(January 13, 2024)

Bank                         $ FDIC Payment

JP-Morgan                  $2.9 billion

Bank of America        $2.1 billion

Wells Fargo                 $1.9 billion

Citigroup                     $1.7 billion

These premiums are necessary to cover the costs for the FCIC’s losses on bank failures earlier in 2023.   FDIC’s reported  loss expense through the first three quarters of 2023 was $19.7 billion.

The FDIC is collecting approximately $16.3 billion in this fourth quarter assessment. The four largest banks will pay the $8.6 billion shown above  or 53% of the total.

Premiums comprised more than 81% of the FDIC ‘s total revenue through the first three quarters of 2023.  Interest income from the FDIC’s investments, the other revenue source, would cover FDIC ‘s operating expenses.  But the $600 million excess would not even begin to cover the almost $20 billion in estimated  insurance losses.  (all data is through September 30, 2023).

FDIC Premiums and Insured Deposits Not Connected

There is no relationship between premiums and FDIC’s insurance coverage of $250,00 per account.  Instead premiums are calculated on  a bank’s net assets which is called its “assessment base.”  At September 2023 this was $20.7 trillion versus just $10.7 trillion of insured shares.

FDIC’s revenue is no longer based on its stated goal to protect depositors’ savings but rather the FDIC’s  role in stabilizing  the entire industry’s balance sheet.   When banks succeed, shareholders win.  When banks fail, everybody pays.

FDIC’s Complex Pricing Structure

The FDIC may set the premium at whatever level it deems necessary to achieve its minimum ratio goal of 1.35%.  The fund recorded an approximately $10 billion operating loss through the September quarter putting the ratio  at just 1.13%.    The $17 billion new assessment is needed cover this shortfall and grow the fund’s ratio target.

Moreover premium rates can vary from 2.5 to 42 basis points  depending on bank size, that is whether an institution is more or less than $10 billion in assets. The final rate is based on each bank’s CAMELS rating plus, for larger firms, a scorecard which measures  “complexity.”

The assessment rates are so complicated  that the FDIC  posts three different calculators for banks to determine what amount they must pay.

This premium system provides virtually no check and balance on pricing, except the rule making process.  It is frequently “updated” and always open- ended in amount. There is no incentive or check and balance on FDIC effectiveness in its oversight or problem solving roles.  Banks must bear the costs not only from institutional failures but also from FDIC’s supervisory effectiveness, good and bad.

The Cooperative Alternative in the NCUSIF

By comparison the NCUSIF is simple to understand, administer and monitor.  Statements are posted monthly.  Public board  updates on investment returns and overall financial trends are presented at least quarterly so credit unions can track their cooperatively designed fund.

The 1% deposit underwriting means premiums are extremely rare, assessed only four times in 40 years since the 1984 redesign went in effect.   Dividends have been paid out over a dozen times.

When the 1% deposits totals are added to the retained earnings, the investment portfolio remains relative in size to the insured risk at all times.  Investment income has proven adequate to  meet all of the fund’s operating expenses and sustain a stable operating level between 1.2 and 1.3% of insured savings.  Based on the latest November NCUSIF financial report the fund’s equity should be at or above the long-time upper cap of  1.3% at yearend 2023.

With NCUSIF equity at the high end of the .2-.3 range, it means there is over $1.7 billion in additional  reserve for any contingency.  In the October NCUSIF update the CFO reported the five-year loss average since 2017 was only .1 of 1 basis point.  The net actual cash loss so far in 2023  was just $1.0 million in the same update.

With over 40 years of data from all economic cycles, financial crisis and evolving credit union business models, there are decades of real data to validate the NCUSIF’s financial design.  This record shows that to maintain a stable NOL a yield  on investments of 2.5-3.0% would sustain the fund through virtually any growth or economic cycle and any operating contingency.

This historical 1.3 % cap is due for Board review in February based on 2023 yearend earnings.   This decision is an important commitment  of  NCUA  to the credit unions who  underwrite the fund.   Unlike the FDIC’s premium dependency, the NCUSIF’s investment portfolio return has proven to be a reliable,  predictable and sufficient model-in all environments.

Therefore, when net income exceeds the NOL cap, the credit unions are paid a dividend on the excess income recognizing their overall sound performance.  This return is a critical element of the cooperative design.

The FDIC’s premium model is unpredictable, subjective and arbitrary,  and most importantly unrelated to the actual insurance coverage per account.

Why the NCUSIF Design Works

The credit union model is based on the historical operational and cooperative  values on which credit unions are founded.  All participants are treated equally.  Risk and expenses are shared alike for all.  It is democratic and accountable in its structure.

The redesign was accomplished with industry-wide  collaboration and participation.  It required congressional approval. It was based on the oldest of cooperative concepts: self-help.  No government assistance or funding was sought or necessary.

Instead the credit unions put themselves in the law as the underwriters of the fund’s resilience, no matter the circumstance.  This is how they intend to maintain their independence as a separate financial system.  For example the S&L’s were merged with the banks and the FDIC when their system collapsed.   Unlike the for-profit, stockholder owned banking system, the moral hazard examples of excessive risk taking by management are extremely rare in the cooperative model.

Understanding NCUSIF’s unique history and design and why it fits credit unions so well is especially important whenever a new board member comes to NCUA.  It will be especially critical Tanya Otsuka be informed of NCUSIF’s special character and long term performance, as much of her professional background is within the FDIC.

The February NOL setting will be the first of many opportunities she will have to show her understanding of the differences between bank and credit union regulation.  Credit unions should be communicating that distinction now.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Person of the Year-One View

Scott Galloway is professor of marketing at NYU’s Stern School of Business.  He is a prolific writer, commentator and provocative analyst  of America’s economic successes and failures.

The following is an excerpt from a much longer December essay on current trends titled Prof G Person of the Year:

The real Person of the Year in 2023? A:  Money. 

I’ve experienced this firsthand, watching as faculty who can’t teach or pen relevant research create a weapon of mass distraction from their mediocrity: DEI. But that’s not what this post is about.

America is becoming more like itself every day: Money is the arbiter of … everything.

There’s a view that the rise of money is a good thing. Or at least not all bad. Human society has never been fair, and as long as people are status-seeking, competitive animals in a world of scarce resources, it won’t ever be. Historically, many of the lines that divided society traced innate characteristics like race or sex, were based on inheritance, or were determined by the exertion of physical strength.

Money doesn’t care about any of these things, and it has washed away barriers in ways that potentially make institutions more accessible. There are now nine Black American billionaires. Good news — and their rise is correlated to an increase in civil rights.

What stops this from being a Hallmark channel version of capitalism is that money, when not reinvested/redistributed (pick your word) quickly pools and concentrates, and innovation and competition decline. “Competition is for losers,” is how Peter Thiel puts it. And he’s following through, buying Senate seats (his protégé, J.D. Vance, is leading the charge to defund Ukraine) to secure the influence of his money.

We aren’t going to end the power of money any time soon. In an economy increasingly run on financialization, with so much wealth in circulation, our objective should be to ensure that it keeps circulating. Money = power, and power should be distributed as widely as possible. . .

My Comment

Galloway’s critique is one of the reasons for cooperatives such as credit unions in a capitalist economy.   That is until the alternative begins to act like capitalists.

I believe the greatest challenge for credit unions is not external–competition, economic uncertainty or technology disruption–but rather internal.   That is, the loss of confidence in who we are and how we try to counter the inevitable goals of more and more money and power, not for  members, but for our personal and institutional ambition.

The greatest challenge is how do credit unions re-engage with members, not as mere customers, but as real owners in the “distribution of power” as Galloway describes it.

Posted on

The New Year & “Auld Acquaintance”

The headline at the end of 2023 summarized the prior year outlooks:   “Market Forecasts Missed Mark in 2023.”   (WSJ December 31, 2023)

Most observers in 2023 thought a recession was inevitable.  The Fed’s rapid rise in rates to counter inflations was intended to slow consumer demand.  That reliable indicator, an inverted yield curve, had indicated negative growth was inevitable for almost six months entering the year.  The economy would slow, unemployment rise and the stock market falter as a result.

Yet two of the three major market indices hit all-time highs and the S&P 500 fell just basis points short of its peak. The economy recorded a higher than normal average GDP growth. The consumer is still spending.

This macro-forecast miss should be a cautionary note as we enter 2024.   Future forecasts, no matter the model used, are not facts.  They are guesses often  based on assumptions reflecting the users’ biases or their institution’s role in the economy.

What is Money for?

To justify an investment decision today by forecasting a hypothetical future can lead to poor outcomes.  A current  example is what will be the role of major head office complexes in an era of hybrid or remote work forces?  Or, what is the value of assets acquired in a low interest rate environment versus the rate reset now occurring in the economy?

For credit unions, the preliminary numbers indicate that 2023will record the lowest share growth in decades.  This balance sheet slowdown will influence many decisions about how and where to invest in the coming year.

Those investment decisions will reflect the values, not just priorities, of each credit union’s leadership team.  Will the institution spend to buy growth from external sources?   Will it invest in enhanced delivery capacity?  Staff skills?   Member education and well-being?

Each credit union has a different context and history in making this fundamental decision about how they will spend to enhance their role in the economy.   As in the case of individual choices, that spend will reflect how leadership understands the institution’s purpose.

The slow growth in 2023 may motivate us to find something new to get back on a normal expansion. But it may be just as wise to  identify what got the credit union to this point.  Are those values still the ones to guide investment priorities for this year?  That is, “don’t let be forgot the “auld acquaintance” of who you are and where you come from.”

 

Posted on

Credit Unions and Popular Culture

Yesterday’s post on The Bank of Dave was a tru-ish movie about an actual effort to organize a local financial institution focused on the needs of the town of Burnley.  Dave Fishwick, a real person, was the hero.  The antagonists were regulatory bureaucrats, lawyers and of course entrenched financial institutions.

As in It’s a Wonderful Life, the founder Dave  is portrayed as someone serving the common good versus personal profit.  The movie’s message is that this person’s purpose is one that present day  society should honor and support.

How are credit unions portrayed in popular American culture?  Are there any movies, books, plays or other artistic recognition of their special history?

Last night I attended a performance of The Seafarer, a play about Irish life by Conor McPherson. The scene is Christmas eve. The four personal friends drink for camaraderie and to cover the darkness in their lives.

A fifth character (Lockhart), the devil in disguise, enters to participate in a poker game, the main action (after drinking) of the second act.

This inebriated poker rounds are a metaphor for Lockhart’s stated intention of capturing the soul of Sharky, a character trying to give up drinking.

During the final betting round, the stakes go higher, and all raise with the last money they have on hand. At that moment the lead character challenges one of the other players, “Where are you going to get your stake?  From the credit union?”

In the midst of this realistic-surrealistic tale is a direct reference to a financial  reality an Irish audience would understand.  The play was written in 2006 as credit unions were becoming more widely available in Ireland, a generation-long process.

Similarly, The Bank of Dave is set in the post 2008/9 financial crisis in Great Britain when consumer lending was unavailable.  Current day  viewers would be familiar with the real circumstances motivating Dave’s initiative.

American Culture and Credit Unions

Where and how are credit unions referenced currently or in past American literature?  Is there a Norman Rockwell painting that illustrates this financial opportunity for a  common person? Or a story of a local entrepreneur lifting up the community with a cooperative charter?

Is the credit union story so prosaic that the occasional coverage in the business section of the paper or on CNN/MSNBC captures our public reputation and contributions?

Have the many remarkable achievements of local credit unions been so taken for granted, that they are now just another ready option in the financial marketplace?

Have credit unions so lost their unique cooperative character that American culture and ordinary citizens, no longer see them as doing something special?