Category: Cooperative Design

Posted on

What Matters in Today’s NCUA Board Meeting

The centerpiece of today’s NCUA’s board agenda is a review of the NCUSIF’s 2023 performance.  Three areas are most important:

  1. Loss management and the reserving allowance estimate.
  2. Investment performance oversight.
  3. Trends in operating expenses.

The  2023 insured share growth was published in the audit preamble, so the NOL cap for yearend 2024 is the outstanding board determination.

This annual NOL review was a commitment by Chairman McWatters when the two-person board first raised the historic 1.3% cap in the NCUSIF in 2017. This change was to retain the inflow of funds from the merger of the TCCUSF. Credit unions uniformly questioned this process and urged a return to the 1.3% as soon as possible.  It has been seven years.

The Insured Losses Rate and Allowance Level

The 2023 net cash losses in the NCUSIF were minuscule, just $1.0 million.  In comparison the banking system has paid the FDIC $761 billion in premiums  for “receivership costs” through September 2023.  

CFO Schied stated in his board update last fall: Since the last taxi failure on October 2018, actual SIF losses are a total of $53.8 million or .0031% (.31 bps) of insured shares as of June 30, 2023.  

With the full 2023 results now in, this annual loss rate is less than .10 basis point per year.  A remarkable record during five years of economic ups and downs. 

The NCUSIF’s yearend $209 allowance account is 1.2 basis points of insured savings or 12 times this  annual loss rate.  Or five times the total for all dollar losses in the past five years.  

CFO Schied told the board that this reserve amount is determined  using a macroeconomic  model.  Will the numbers, assumptions and calculations in this model be available so users of the statements know how it works and its factual validity?

NCUSIF’s  Investment Portfolio Management

The $22.4 billion (book value) in total NCUSIF investments is the only revenue source for the fund, unless the Board chooses to assess a premium.  This has occurred only four times in the past forty years.

Since December 2021 the portfolio’s market value has been less than book.

This means the portfolio is not earning current market rates.  At yearend 2023 the NCUSIF’s term portfolio had a yield of just 1.4%;  the $5.2 billion in overnight funds earned 5.4%.  The combined yield for all 2023 was just over 2.0%.

During 2023 the buildup of portfolio cash  reduced the Fund’s weighted average yield by a full year, from 3.33 years to 2.30 years. This change reduces interest rate risk.    This number is the approximate time it would take the portfolio’s reinvestments from maturing securities to reprice  if rates normalized at their current level.

In last fall’s presentations to the NCUA board, the CFO indicated that the Fund’s investment policy had not changed.  And that having achieved the initial cash target ($4.0 billion), the committee would begin considering extending out the curve—even though the interest rate curve continues to be inverted.

Interest rate risk is the primary  threat to be managed consistent with optimizing earnings.  This is what I believe an NCUA examiner would write about the current Board oversight.  The wording is borrowed from a CAMELS code 3 exam of a multibillion dollar credit union:

Risk:  Strategic    Degree of Risk:  High

CAMELS Effect:  Management, ALM, Earnings, Capital

Reason for rating:  A capital planning discipline is not in place to manage the interest rate risk (IRR) that is commensurate with the size and complexity of (credit union). . . and the exposure presented to the NCUSIF.

The Credit union’s ALM (investment) policy establishes guidelines related to capital, net income, and net economic value of equity, but does not contain specific, established interest rate risk limits. 

Examination Requirements:  Matters requiring Board attention.

The board should further develop, document, and implement a policy to measure and monitor interest rate risk. The revised policy and plan should include the following actions at a minimum:

  1. Establish and implement maximum policy limits for the interest rate risk metrices used in the ALM/investment analysis.
  2. Evaluate and provide interest rate compliance and trending reports/charts based on the existing balance sheet under current rate forecasts monthly.
  3. Update projected yearend capital ratios on a monthly basis.

I could not have suggested a better approach for the Board’s attention.

Operating Expenses

Since 2008, 93% of the operating expenses of the fund are from NCUA’s overhead allocation of its expenses via the Overhead Transfer rate.   The OTR ranged from a low of 52% (2008) to 73.1% (2016).  For 2023, NCUSIF’s operating expenses increased 12.6% using an OTR of 62.4%.

From 1979 through 1984, the percent of NCUA’s expenses paid by the NCUSIF, were never higher than 26% (pg 39 NCUSIF 84 Annual Report).  Until 2001, the transfer rate had been fixed at 50%.

The current expense level equals approximately 1.3 basis points of insured shares.  In terms of yield on the entire portfolio, this requires the fund to earn 1%.  Operating expenses are a fixed cost, right off the top of revenue. If not controlled they take resources away from the Fund’s primary insurance resources.

Calculating the Normal Operating Level

With the audit numbers and the total of insured shares from December call reports in hand, the equity to insured shares ratio can be computed at yearend.  NCUA says the NOL number is 1.3%.

This ratio determines the prospect for a dividend when the fund’s net income raises retained earnings above the NOL upper cap.   This cap is set by board action each December.

The 2022 board meeting kept the 2023 upper limit   at 1.33 even though one member expressed the view that it should revert to the historical 1.3% which had existed until from 1984 through 2017.

When will the board make this determination for 2024?

The meeting starts at 10:00 AM.  For a full review of credit union’s financial performance, Callahan & Associates presents their quarterly Trend Watch analysis at 2:00.

Posted on

The NCUSIF’s Valentine’s Day Surprise

Late yesterday NCUA released the independent CPA audits of the four credit union funds it manages.

The one that matters most for credit unions is the NCUSIF’s performance.  Plumbing through the opaque federal accounting presentation reveals much good news.

Bear in mind  when reviewing the highlights below that the FDIC is struggling to increase its insurance ratio.  It has assessed increased premiums  to pay for the hundreds of millions of bank failures in 2023.

Some NCUSIF 2023 Highlights

  • Net income increased to $210 million. This is the best operating result ever and almost double the $119 million recorded 2022.
  • Net insured losses (cash payments less recoveries) were just $1.0 million. Nonetheless he allowance account was increased to $209 million, the largest total since the taxi medallion inflated reserve in 2017.
  • Insured share growth was flat ending at $1.7 trillion. The aggregate net worth ratio for all insured credit union increased to 10.95% from 10.78% at yearend 2022.
  • The Fund’s normal operating level (NOL) grew to over 1.30% at yearend. Each basis point equals $170 million.  Adding the allowance account raises total reserves to over 1.31% or a potential $1.9 billion cushion above the NCUSIF’s lower NOL limit of 1.20%.  Since 2008, the total losses for all the NCUSIF’s preceding 15 years equal $1.877 billion.
  • There is opportunity for even greater returns in 2024. The NCUSIF’s yield on its $22.4 billion investment portfolio was just over 2% in 2023.  Overnight rates are projected to remain above 5% for the first half of 2024.   Adding the current overnights of $5.2 billion plus the $1.4 billion maturing in the first five months, gives a cash portfolio of $6.6 billion yielding 5% or higher, until the Fed begins reducing rates.

The One Missing Number

In the December’s 2022 board meeting, NCUA set an NOL upper cap of 1.33% for the NCUSIF.  Board member Hood had urged that the historical .3% upper limit be restored.

This upper cap matters. All income above this limit in a year must be distributed as a dividend to the Fund’s owners, the credit unions.  This is the fundamental promise in return for credit union’s open-ended 1% deposit underwriting.

To date I have seen no upper cap set for 2024.  Hopefully this means the long term, historically validated limit will be in place for this year.

Restoring this 1.3% cap would make this the perfect Valentine for the credit union system’s uniquely successful  cooperative Fund.  Isn’t it time NCUA shared a little love with credit unions?

 

 

Posted on

Holding the NCUSIF to Its Promised Performance

This week NCUA will report on the 2023 financial audit of the NCUSIF in two days.  This will be the 42th external, independent certified audit of the fund.

The Good News: A Ratio Showing the Fund’s Stability

Multiple financial events have presented numerous stress tests for the NCUSIF since 2008.  These include  2008/9 Great Recession followed by quantitative easing and a period of abnormally low rates. Then came the COVID national economic shutdown. The current inflation has been countered by the Federal Reserve’s rate increases, the most rapid in 40 years.

Through all these scenarios, one trend line demonstrates the Fund’s resilience. The chart below is the ratio of retained earnings to insured shares for this 14-year period.

The blue line shows the Fund’s equity at or above the historical .3% upper cap.  The orange line adds the allowance account balance, which are additional reserves already expensed from equity.

The uniqueness of the fund is more than a steady  earnings base growing in tandem with insured risk.

This cooperative funding model aligns with the values, culture and balance sheet structure of the credit union system.  Every member contributes 1 cent of every $1 share for this collective insurance. In turn it is a resource available to assist any credit union that needs cash or other 208 assistance if facing insurmountable challenges.

The unique NCUSIF design works; however the history may not be known to current board members or to some credit union leaders.   Credit unions need to remind all of this important story and what this stability has meant for their members.

The NCUSIF’s Founding-Getting the Correct Numbers

Outside audits were not the practice from the NCUSIF’s founding in 1971 through 1981.  GAO had performed an audit every two years; the report came six months or more after the audit date. The 1982 NCUSIF Annual Report described this change from GAO to a private independent firm implementing GAAP accounting standards:

“To ensure the Fund’s statements are examined in the most timely manner and to seek an assessment of accounting procedure, the NCUA contracted for the first independent audit ever conducted of the Fund’s balance sheet by an outside accounting firm. 

In the years prior to fiscal 1982, the Fund recorded losses from financially troubled credit unions at the time these credit unions were ultimately merged or liquidated.  Additionally, losses on asset guarantees . . . were recorded at the time that payments were made under guarantee agreements. 

Beginning in 1982 the Fund began the process of conforming its accounting for losses from credit unions to GAAP.   (These) principles require that the fund record losses at an earlier point in time than had previously been the Fund’s practice.   In this respect the Fund recorded estimated losses under the cash assistance program of $14.1 million and of $15.6 million on outstanding asset and merger guarantees. 

In addition, GAAP generally required that the Fund record estimated potential loss accruals for credit unions identified as experiencing financial difficulties but not receiving cash assistance. . . The Fund did not attempt to estimate these additional losses for fiscal 1982 because it was not practicable to accumulate the information needed to make the estimates.

Equally as important as the change in accounting methods were the improvements to the fund’s records.  Ernst & Whinney worked with the Fund’s accounting staff identifying areas that were not properly recorded . . . As a result the Fund is now publishing monthly statements which will help all interested parties monitor the financial results.”  (pages 7-8 NCUSIF 1982 Annual Report)

The Report’s remaining 20 pages gave details of cash assistance, guarantees and merger costs along with an overview of all insurance programs and credit union trends.  Transparency in every respect was essential for confidence in the Fund’s management.

Chairman Callahan’s view was that, “We believe our “full and fair” disclosure should be no less than what we expect insured credit unions to give their members.”

A Radical Change in Accounting Accuracy, Timeliness and Transparency

In the 1984 audit, Ernst & Whinney gave the Fund its first ever clean opinion “in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied on a consistent basis.”

Without this three-year effort (1982-1984) to improve the timeliness (monthly board reports), accuracy (GAAP accounting) and transparency,  the credit union system  might not have supported the radical redesign of the NCUSIF. This new approach  required  perpetual 1% deposit underwriting.

This cooperative model was passed by Congress in 1984 with full credit union support. To implement the 1% underwriting, 15,303 federally insured credit unions deposited $845 million into  the fund by January 1985.

The Last Shall Be First

The result was that the NCUSIF instantly became the strongest and, through time,  the most stable of the then three federal deposit insurance funds.

The NCUSIF never looked back or across the aisle.  The FSLIC merged with the FDIC.   The FDIC has reported negative net worth and periods of ever increasing premiums, such as now, to try to meet its minimum ratio level.

NCUA’s graph of this change in the standing of the three funds from page 37, NCUSIF’s 1985 Annual Report.

Vigilance-The Price for Performance

In a speech to credit union managers and the press following the 1984 recapitalization, Chairman Callahan gave the following “pitch”(his word):

“Don’t set it up and forget about it.  It’s unique. It’s a better way.  But just as important, it’s yours to monitor—it’s your responsibility to keep it working—because if you don’t it’ll go just like everything else the government touches.  When government gets more money, it wants to spend more.  Our goal is to spend less (on insurance). You’ll have to hold us to that promise.”

Then in 2010 there came a change in how the NCUSIF’s financials were presented.

The Change In Accounting Standards for the NCUSIF

The NCUSIF’s GAAP presentation was a financial format that all credit unions knew and followed. This GAAP audit is the only format used in NCUA’s Operating Fund and the CLF since they were both audited by independent accounting firms beginning in 1982.

On June 23, 2010 Credit Union Times printed a story with the headline, Auditors Fault NCUA’s Accounting.  The article in part:

“KPMG gave the NCUA an unqualified audit but found material weaknesses in the reporting and documentation methods.  . . NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz said the 2008 and 2009 audits (released on June 14, 2010) had been delayed because of the problems facing the corporate credit unions. . . According to the KPMG report, the NCUSIF does not have sufficiently comprehensive policies and procedures that document control activities and monitoring functions that should be embedded and/or performed within the financial and reporting process.”

In a June 17, 2010 Agency bulletin, the NCUA board announced it had adopted Federal GAAP accounting for the newly authorized TCCUSF.  The same bulletin had this statement:

The National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) is required by the Federal Credit Union Act to follow U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The General Counsel’s opinion concluded that “section 105 of the GCC Act, as interpreted by the General Accounting Office, does not preclude NCUSIF from using an alternative set of accounting rules such as FASAB in preparing the NCUSIF’s financial statements.”

Shortly thereafter there was a change as reported in this footnote in  the NCUSIF’s 2010 yearend audit: Basis of Presentation  The NCUSIF historically prepared its financial statement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) based on standards issued by FASB, the private sector standards setting body. On September 16, 2010, the NCUA board authorized the NCUSIF to adopt the FASAB standards for financial reporting, effective from January 1, 2010.   Accordingly, this is the first year of the presentation of the NCUSIF financial statements in accordance with FASAB.

A Misleading Accounting Presentation

However, FASAB’s  form and content are very different from private GAAP. The account titles, presentation and interpretation are intended for reporting entries that rely on governmental funding.  The NCUSIF is totally dependent on credit union funding.  The FASAB format is completely alien to the accounting presentations familiar to and used by credit unions and CUSO’s.

A Strange Set of Federal Accounts

Some of the NCUSIF’s balance sheet accounts that are completely novel under federal GAAP include:

Balance Sheet headings and account categories: Intergovernmental.  With the public; Insurance and guarantee program liabilities;(Loss reserve); Net Position, and its cumulative results of operations (not the same as retained earnings)

The traditional Income Statement is replaced with two other presentations. The first is, “Statements of Net Cost”.  This includes Gross Costs followed by Less Exchange Revenues and concludes with a bottom line Net cost of Operations (which is not net income).

The second Statement is Changes in Net Position.  This includes net unrealized loss or gain on investments, and interest income, the primary revenue source for the NCUSIF.

In standard GAAP, Statements of Cash Flows is replaced with the governmental “appropriations terminology”: Statement of Budgetary Resources.  This includes subtotals for Total Budgetary Resources, Status of Budgetary Resources and Outlays Net.

These accounting concepts are far removed from any of NCUSIF’s actual operations.  When staff gives the board’s NCUSIF quarterly update, it converts the income and balance sheet statement to the traditional GAAP format.  However the monthly postings are not converted. They remain in the idiosyncratic federal GAAP Accounting format.

Understanding Critical Accounting and Finance Decisions

The NCUSIF’s federal presentation is misleading in its factual representation of transactions which suggests that the NCUSIF is a governmental appropriated fund.

Certain critical  concepts and terms are absent. The most important is “retained earnings.”  One looks in vain for the number which is used to compute the NCUSIF’s normal operating level.  Another concept is “fiduciary assets” which means AMC assets are not fully recognized on the NCUSIF balance sheet.

The NCUA Board’s Opportunity:  Enhance Transparency for the Fund’s Users

Eternal vigilance is hard when numbers are presented in a federal disguise. At a minimum, the NCUA board should request the auditor also represent the yearend audit numbers in private GAAP format.  Staff should also present the monthly updates in this standard.

Then users of the statements can easily understand the trends. More importantly they can fulfill the challenge from a previous NCUA chair for credit unions:  it’s yours to monitor—it’s your responsibility to keep it working. 

Restoring easily understood transparency to  the NCUSIF’s financial presentation would be an important step forward for the NCUA Board in its upcoming annual review.  

 

Posted on

Einstein’s and Others’ Thoughts on the Advantages of Credit Unions

The “Home Court” Advantage

From Greylock Federal Credit Union:

We have officially welcomed over 100,000 Members! We are deeply proud to be the hometown financial institution of choice by so many in our community and we want to say THANK YOU!

From Springfield High School’s student newspaper on the school play:

. . .One of the important aspects of high school is the opportunity to be a part of something bigger than yourself. Being involved in the production process, like Hashmi stated, has allowed students to contribute to the creation of a captivating performance. It is a chance to collaborate with a team of talented individuals and learn new skills along the way. Plus, there’s a unique sense of camaraderie that comes with being part of a play. So, if you enjoy the idea of working behind the scenes and being a crucial part of bringing a story to life, the fall play is definitely worth considering! 

A Video: What Good Business Looks Like

This short video “story” from Thailand should be  required viewing for every credit union board that has ever contemplated the merging of their long- serving coop.  It is a stunning example you won’t forget. It disproves the capitalist adage, “Everybody has a price.”

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HtaYMhDr4k)

Einstein on the critical credit union advantage in a Market Driven Economy

This week has seen another bank’s stock price fall by over half from $10 to $4 per share.

From Yahoo finance:  The Pressure on NYCB is Not Letting Up.  At yearend 2023 the bank reported $116 billion in assets and $10.8 billion in total equity.

Its history in brief: New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (NYCB), headquartered in Hicksville, New York, is a bank holding company for Flagstar Bank. In 2023, the bank operates 395 branches in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Arizona and Wisconsin under multiple local brands acquired via multiple acquisitions.

Einstein’s explanation of the credit union advantage, especially in times of crisis, is simple-Time: The only reason for time is so that everything doesn’t happen at once. 

The cooperative member-owner structure gives management and the owners time to straighten things out when problems occur.  Let markets cycle through their phases.  However, there is no respite in the winner-take-all world of competition when a market owned firm falls from grace.

The Justifications in Self-Serving Mergers in Which Members Get Nothing

In my recent look back on several mergers, I reached out to a participant from several years ago. Had the members seen any change for the better? The reply:   it’s just another bank without heart or soul or members, just customers…but then, we might just be American Idiots …

If we’re honest, culture forms us as much as our statements of personal values.

Human beings can live without many things, but not with an absence of meaning. In our “free” market driven economy dominated by for-profit firms, cooperative CEO’s and boards will continue to cloth self-interested actions in moralisms and myths.

Fortunately, members are not idiots.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A Winner’s Inside Account of a Very Close Merger

On November 9, 2021 the results of one of the most contested credit union merger elections were announced.  The members of Vermont State Employees (VSE) had approved a merger with New England FCU.  The final tally was 7,622 for and 7,304 against, a margin of 318 votes.  Approximately 21% of the members voted, an unusually high participation.

I wrote a number of blogs about the contest.   The opposition put up a website Calling All Members led by the former CEO and previous board directors. It  presented powerful arguments against ending VSE’s independence.  For these longtime VSE supporters, the outcome was a surprise and disappointment.  However, they chose not to challenge the results.  Since the  merger date of January 1, 2023, VSE has operated as a division of New England FCU.  A new name/brand is promised for the future. 

“In the Room Where It Happened”

John Kennedy once said, “Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan.”  In this case victory has a mother.

I recount this story from a much longer article about her efforts.  This insider’s account raises the question what the outcome might have been had this approach been revealed during, not 8 months after the vote.

In July 2023 this VSE senior executive who directed the merger campaign was the subject of a long account by Joel Berg. It is posted in full on the Financial Brand website, Tactics from a Nail-Biter Merger That Every Bank Marketer Can Use.

This lengthy, first-person story of the voting campaign centers on Yvonne Garand, VSE’s chief marketing manager.   The article includes examples of the mailings and other promotions from the campaign which are not included here.

Writer Berg describes Garand’s communications strategy as the “make-or-break factor.”  These included messaging to target segments at critical points in what ended up being conducted like a “political  campaign” including hiring a consultant expert in political elections.

The author believes this case “offers lessons for other institutions concerned about how customers will react to a change in ownership.”  Also an example of tactics necessary to  win.  He says the fundamental challenge in any merger or purchase-even if members vote:  “the customers or members coming on board didn’t choose to bank with the acquirer on their own.”

The Critical Tactic for “Getting out the Votes”

The critical communication tactic was segmentation.  Identify key groups and prepare different messages, tone and style for each subsector.

The two credit unions had different histories and business priorities.  Both were community charters but VSE’s (1947) legacy was its state employee origins. New England’s roots were as an IBM chartered credit union (1961) with  members outside the state from the beginning. These two Vermont based credit unions had created different business models, cultures, and brands.

Garand called her communications strategy a “human-centric approach” that ensured the “messages were empathetic.”  In this short  video link in the article she summarizes her approach with this point–the campaign couldn’t be a typical merger story about greater scale and efficiency.

“All of those things are important. But that’s our inside jargon. And we knew that if we came out with messaging and communications that sounded like that, people might not understand it, and it might even feel a little intimidating.”

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtc2GWunoZY&t=55s)

Several key segments included “digital natives,” environmentally minded members,  and those located around New England’s branch structure in Burlington.

But the most group was VSE members who lived near the state capital of Montpelier.  As the longest tenured members, “We knew that this was probably the segment that would feel the greatest sense of loss because they grew up with VSECU. We really wanted this group to know that they were still going to have the same experiences that they have today.”

As Berg notes in the article, “knowing many “no” votes would come from the state capital area, the credit union focused on reaching potential voters in other areas of Vermont who might be more receptive to the merger plan.”  He quotes Garand: “We strategically focused on the Burlington market — Chittenden County — as well as other smaller regions in Vermont, to encourage those members to vote. And it worked.”

Changing Tactics as the Opposition Organized

Garand’s reaction to the opposition, “It did take us off guard just a little bit, how effective this opposition was in the central Vermont area.”

The independence effort was led by Steven Post the former CEO of 26 years and other directors and senior executives.  Their website offered multiple, thoughtful reasons for sustaining VSE’s unique values based, Vermont-centric model. I wrote several blogs presenting their position that VSE’s continuation was in the members’ best interest.

The Vermont State Employees’ Association and the Vermont Retired State Employees’ Association, opposed the merger. Given this backing, “we thought we were going to win,” says Post the previous long term CEO.

What made the difference?  The opponents say it was VSE’s resources used to promote  the merger.  If one looks at the increase in marketing and professional services spending in 2022 versus the prior year, it would seem to confirm one critic’s estimate that over $1.0 million was used to convince members to support management’s decision.

From Berg’s article, “If we had had money to put ads on TV, I don’t have any doubt that the outcome would have been different,” says Jerome W. Diamond, the state AG from 1975 to 1981 and a former chair of the credit union’s board.”

The Vital Tactical Change

As the opposition organized Garand changed tactics from a traditional company marketing-messaging effort to a political campaign.  Even bringing in outside consultant with election expertise.

Berg’s article includes more details with marketing collateral.  This is an insider’s account of her role to persuade members to support VSE’s termination. She avoids debates about member benefits, rather the member communications focus on “feel good” concepts:  “Better Together,”  “Leading from the Future,” and “Enriching the Quality of Life.”

Garand rejects traditional business logic for mergers-scale, efficiency, innovation- to solicit votes.  Recognize the opposition, but don’t engage with the critics.

The credit union controls the communication channels to reach the members including branch signage and multiple message marketings. Focus on advertising a potential bright future not on whether members should give up control over all the resources, relationships and community focus they have created and own.

Learning from the Past

Once eliminated via merger, there is no going back to resuscitate a vital legacy over 75 years in the making.  When reporting on the outcome I described the losses that occurred not only for VSE members, but the state credit union system and its citizens.

New England FCU’s acquisition  not only eliminated its principal competitor, it also created one credit union controlling  47% of the state’s credit union assets and 40% of members at the merger date.   A big egg for one basket.

Tomorrow I will look at the results of the merger one year out.  How are members responding?  What are the financial trends?  It is especially important for a look back while the events and points of view are still remembered.

We can change the future if we are willing to learn from the past.  And then take seriously the differing judgments about the event’s consequences. One group lost an election about a credit union’s future role.

However everyone loses when the event is merely another successful example of the power of propaganda, or marketing, whichever interpretation best fits this recounting.

Posted on

Big Banks Adopting a Credit Union Tactic

Yesterday’s Marketplace program on NPR had a brief report on the investments two of America’s five largest banks are making to improve their competitive position.

Technology?  New Ventures? Greater staff skills? Social Marketing Influencers?  Third party-fintech-origination partners?  More acquisitions?  All are factors, but not the newest priority.

The New-Old Strategy

JPMorgan Chase announces brick-and-mortar bank expansion in a digital age

Several of the relevant paragraphs from the story:

In the year 2024, when you think banking, you think mobile apps, online deposits, digital future, right? Not so fast. JPMorgan Chase, the country’s largest bank, announced today it’s opening more than 500 new brick-and-mortar branches and renovating another 1,700.

This follows an expansion by Bank of America last summer. So, what’s the value of banking in person in the digital age?

You don’t usually think of a bank as having a living room. But Jason Patton of JPMorgan Chase says they’ll be a staple in a handful of the bank’s new branches, which are meant to be places where people chat. . . (in cu’s this is called serving members)

“Some of these branches, we’re opening up in places where we’re not as well known,” he said. “So, in many cases, people don’t know what we have to offer.”

And it’s important to see and be seen by those people if banks are going to drum up new business, said Jaime Peters, a finance professor at Maryville University in St. Louis.

“By going and building these new branches, and having that placard on the side of the road that people pass every day, that is brand awareness, that is trust building,” she said. . .

The Only Growth Option Is Organic

Big banks have another incentive to add branches: The ones that hold more than 10% of the nation’s deposits are generally prohibited from acquiring other banks, said Michael Rose, a managing director in equity research for Raymond James. 

“So because you’ve removed the ability for them to actually acquire other banks, they have to grow essentially organically,” he said.

The Credit Union Counter: Enhancing “Their” Local Environment

After posting the latest video from White Fish CU,  I received a link from Jason Lindstrom CEO of Evergreen CU in Maine.  This new video  has a similar community theme, but different subject matter. It is an homage to Maine’s forests and the people who maintain and enjoy them.

In addition to branches,  “local” means that  a credit union is authentically “home-grown,” not merely a local outpost of an out-of-state or national financial firm.    Bank of America or JP Morgan Chase branches are not being grown (drummed up) from the natural environment.  Rather they are an invasive species, trying to replace the local habitat.

This is Evergreen’s mission, “keeping Maine wild.”

(https://youtu.be/ocJ5PGR8FM8?si=VF46w9L01uk_tEj4)

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 Stockton (Part II)

This is a three-part look back of a January 26, 2022  article on the transfer of $10 million of members’ capital to a non profit  by the CEO and Chair as a result of merging Finance Center Credit Union.

Part I  summarized the previous events and articles offering principals’ explanations.

Part II below presents data subsequent to the merger from the Foundation and CEO Duffy’s activities through January 2024.

Part III will address what happens now?

Part II: Updating the FCCU2 Story To the Present

How is the newly expanded Valley Strong Credit Union doing?  After the first full year post-merger, (ending December 2022) the credit union was going gangbusters.   However as of September 2023, the same indicators suggest the credit union has hit a  brick wall.

Ratio/ Measure     December 22    Dec ’23

Loan growth %            49.1%                 -6.6%

Share growth                8.7%                      1.5%

Members                     16.4%                       6.8%

Total Assets                 21.3%                    -3.8%

Net Income                 (46.0%)                   8.6%

ROA                                 .44%                         .44%

Net Worth                       8.1%                       8.5%

Loan Originations         58.5%                (51.4%)

Delinquency                     1.1%                        1.2%

Net C-O loans              $25.4 M              $68.8 M

# employees-FTE            625                       570

Two notes from 4th Quarter numbers.  The credit union reported a non-operating gain of $15.2 million or 84% of total net income on which ROA is computed.

The compound four year CAGR annual ROA growth (2019-2023) is negative 18.9.  In the same period the annual CAGR for average salaries and benefits grew 12.2% per year.

The two years’ trends show a dramatic slowdown in key balance sheet accounts,  rising loan charge offs and a staff reduction of 50 employees.  Mergers can create an initial  “sugar-high” growth appearance, but sustainability depends on a firm’s ability to  develop relationships, that is grow organically.   How FCCU members view their new credit union is hard to discern from this macro data.

 The Data from IRS Filings

The 990 IRS non profit filings for FCCU2 and Valley Strong (both  for 2022) provide important data.

From Valley’s 990, we learn that all of the senior FCCU employees listed in the Member Notice, remain employees and qualified for their $800,000 in total 2021 merger bonuses. Their total  compensation for 2022 is listed as :

Michael Duffy, EVP Chief Advocacy Officer    $1,088.045.

Nora Stroh, Legacy Ambassador  $361,814

Steve  Leiga, VP Accounting   $354,748

David Rainwater, Sr. Project Mgr   $362,747

Amanda Verstl, HR manager   $353,542

The data is from Valley Strong’s 2022 Schedule J partially shown below.

Total compensation of the five senior FCCU executives on this schedule is $2, 521, 696.

The FCCU2 IRS Information-A $2.0 Million Bonus Contribution

The FCCU2 foundation’s 990 for 2022  provides information about the transfer and use of FCCU members’ funds from the merger.

  • The most stunning fact is that the Fund did not receive the $10 million listed in the official Member Notice. Rather the total sent to the foundation  in 2021 was for $11,959,462 or almost $2.0 million more than disclosed to and voted on by members.

No explanation is provided where these additional funds came from? Why were they taken from members or not transferred to Valley Strong as part of the equity transfer? Who approved this $2.0 million additional amount? What was NCUA’s role?

  • In the same 2022 IRS filing we learn:
    • The Foundation has changed its name to The 54 Fund.  No public explanation of the reason can be found in any media.
    • The address is no longer at the former credit union’s office but in the building below, that is 2616 Pacific Avenue #4081. It is the local post box not an office.

  • The new foundation lists no website address or other contact information.  When I emailed Foundation director Steve Liega on the IRS return, I received no reply.  When dialing the phone number, it is “not in service.”

  • We do see the $250,000 donation listed in Valley Strong’s contributions, its largest single grant.

We also learn all of the initial funds were invested in a firm called the Dana Group.  What does this have to do with credit unions or prudent investing?

After adding  $2.0 million more of members’ funds, all these registration/location changes further remove the Foundation from public scrutiny and accountability. The only  information available is from the IRS 990 filed in October 2023, ten months after year-end.

In  contrast credit union call reports are public and received quarterly.  Annual  state and federal exams validate reported data. The 990 provides additional information on donations, political contributions and executive salaries.  In contrast, the financial details of the new 54 Fund are available once per year and then ten months after year end.

The 54 Fund Spent $0.38 for Each $1.0 Donated

Even though limited, the Foundation’s first full year report gives insight how it manages its activities.

Total revenue was $368,658  including the $250,000 donation from Valley Strong.   Total operating expenses were $105,858. Charitable donations were $272,479.  For every $1 in donations, the Fund spent another $.38 on operating expenses.

The $272,479 donations were distributed in 86 grants ranging in size from $1,000 (45) to three at $25,000 each.  The recipients include churches/temples of all denominations, multiple private and public schools, private social agencies, and the United Way of San Joaquin. The 54 Fund at 2022 yearend had more assets than at the beginning ($11.974 vs $12.058 million)

The purpose stated for all  grants is “general support.” Other than seven over $10,000, the much smaller 79 amounts might be characterized by the term, “walking around money.”

Of the nine 54 Fund directors chosen by Duffy, four are former senior FCCU employees, now at Valley Strong.  In 2022, all five former senior FCCU executives listed in the Member Notice received much greater annual compensation from Valley Strong  than the Fund’s $272,492 in total donations to help its 29,000 former members.  Is it just proving the adage “charity starts at home?”  Were these five positions  and pay, or others,  “at will” or negotiated in contracts?  Did the executives guarantee their success and not member benefits?

Three other 54 Fund directors are former FCCU board members including the  Chair Manual Lopez. Another director is Ed Figeroa, listed as Executive Director, who received a salary  of $46,667.  Figeroa had recently retired as CEO of St. Mary’s Dining Room. In 2020 the charity received a $100,000 donation from FFCU as part of the credit union’s Stockton Strong donation (see video from Part I).

By comparison, Valley Strong CU made  total 501 C3 contributions in 2022 over $1.1 million including  $250K to the 54 Fund.  These grants were made without the need for a foundation.

As a tax exempt organization there is no purpose for a credit union to establish a separate foundation to  expense grants.   This raises the question of motivation.  Why was a new foundation needed “to advance and support the needs of the members”-Duffy’s characterization in Part I.

The “Tragedy of the Commons”

Why was the  FCCU2 foundation established just a month before the merger announcement when it was unnecessary for charitable grants in the credit union’s previous 65 years of operations? Or at Valley Strong now?

The separate foundation registered by CEO Duffy (along with  his former employees and board directors) keeps total control  of the  funds by Duffy.  If the money had been returned to  the members  or transferred to Valley Strong, the ability to continue to cultivate an image as a civic patron would not be under Duffy’s control.  This transfer of $12 million  “privatized” members’ common wealth.

The  54 Foundation was the vehicle used to promote the personal philanthropic reputation of the  FCCU CEO once he left his leadership role.  His previous political and public grants activity had been funded from his credit union’s resources.  He needed a new funding source.

Two examples of this reputation motivation are in recent articles. In January 2024 Michael Duffy was selected as Stockton’s 69th Stocktonian of the year.  The story begins:

“Dressed in a gray plaid suit and a red striped bow tie, the former president and CEO of the Financial Center Credit Union became the 69th person to receive the award for service and positive impact on the city.”  The paper provided a series of pictures of the event. 

The article cited Duffy’s past as CEO of FCCU (a responsibility he had exited 28 months earlier) and his position at Valley Strong. There is no reference to Valley Strong’s recent charity or the Foundation as the source of Duffy’s donations.  But he gladly accepts the praise and publicity for giving away a tiny fraction of the $12.0 million set aside from the  former FCCU members’ collective savings.

A longer article reporting the same award was published by the Stocksonian on January 29, Banker Michael  Duffy Surprised by selection as Stocksonian of the Year.

He is now described as a “banker” a higher calling apparently than a former credit union CEO.

He is quoted in the article saying: “I love Stockton, and so I find every which way to be a part of Stockton,” Duffy said. “If it’s from the north, to the south, the east, the west, the tiny neighborhoods, the big events, the very small not-for-profits, the very big ones, if I can be there enjoying this city with everybody I’m there.”

Neither article notes that after gaining his living for 28 years from the credit union, he and his board failed to seek a successor to lead the city’s 66-year old and largest local cooperative financial firm. That would be  standard industry best practice when CEO’s decide to leave.  It is also a fiduciary duty of the Board of directors.

This is a recent case  of how CEO succession normally proceeds, especially for financially strong credit unions. FCCU’s capital ratio of 16% was twice the ratio of Valley Strong.

But that process would mean Duffy would be out of a job which had been paying  him over $1.0 million per year. And he would no longer have access to members’ funds to show his civic “love.”

A Financial Pied Piper Leads Members and Resources to Bakersfield

The term Pied Piper refers to a person who is able to charm or lure others through the use of their skills and ability to manipulate them for their own gain.

Instead of sustaining the credit union  to serve its founding community, Duffy engineered the transfer of 29,000 Stockton’s members’ $635 million locally owned assets and their $110 million accumulated capital.  A new board and executive team 250 miles away now controls how these resources will be used.

When initiating this change of control to a credit union with no local  roots,  Duffy set aside $12 million of his members’ surplus for his direct control in the 54 Fund.

He turned the Robin Hood model of wealth distribution into a financial round robin game.  He first retains money, not using it for member benefits, to build reserves more than 100% higher than peers. From this extraordinary capital surplus, he directs $12 million into the new organization he controls.  To justify this diversion,  he says it to help those from whom he withheld the earnings benefit in the first place.

When CEO, Duffy short-changed members’ returns  by building capital ratios twice the industry average.  He turns to this same source for the 54 Foundation funds. Truly a double blow for those who entrusted their financial futures to his credit union leadership.

In Part III I will discuss what happens next.  And share the names and writings of two persons who saw through this whole financial flim flam from the start.

(Editor’s note:  Valley Strong data for December 2023 updated on February 3, 2024)

Posted on

NCUA’s Disdain for Credit Union Democracy

Let’s get right to the point.  NCUA does not believe in member democracy, member rights or any aspect of owner-member control.

The cooperative model capitalizes on the character of its member-owners who join to help each other attain a better economic status. But that is not NCUA’s belief.  For them, members are merely customers. NCUA’s primary duty is regulatory compliance, not enhancing the owner’s role. The democratic structure of one member one vote in elections is a theory rarely practiced. And its practice has nothing to do with the regulator’s oversight.

There are numerous examples of not just NCUA indifference, but outright rejection of requests to protect the property and process rights of member owners.  The examples are rampant in three areas:  the administration of mergers, the oversight of bylaw requirements/amendments framing director fiduciary conduct, and when asserting absolute, unaccountable and unexplained regulatory actions to close member owned institutions.

Unconstrained-Unexplained Closures

Following are two examples this month of NCUA forcing a merger without a member vote or any form of due process, and just vague wording: “The conditions of the merger met regulatory provisions that allowed for a waiver of the membership vote.” No facts to justify this cancellation of $32.1 million Gabriels Community CU charter.

A second example is cited again by CU Times:  “An NCUA spokesperson said the $2.9 million Waconized Federal Credit Union in Waco, Texas was given the OK to merge with the $16.7 million 1st University Credit Union, also based in Waco. The consolidation was allowed in accordance with NCUA Rules and Regulations, Part 708(b), which gives the federal agency the authority to permit a merger without a member vote under certain circumstances.”

This arbitrary, unexplained use of NCUA authority is not new.   In a February 26, 2022 post, the End of Kappa Alpha PSI  (occurring in 2010), I provide the detail of NCUA’s liquidation while an appeal was pending of this black fraternity’s credit union.

This is not conduct limited to times of crisis. I list many other situations where NCUA arbitrarily removed management, forced mergers or performed instant liquidations without due process as recently as May 2020. In a single example from April 2016 the agency summarily liquidated six credit unions that reported collective net worth of 17.6% without any conservatorship or other steps required by its own rules.

At the time of most critical and consequential regulatory action, the agency rebuffs any explanations. All of the circumstances are kept behind closed doors: “we do not comment on our efforts or conditions related to conserved (or troubled) credit unions” is the standard defense.

At the moment the member-owners’ role is negated, the NCUA goes mum. Accountable to no one.  As the two most recent examples occurred within a week of December yearend, it is easy to surmise why these silent closures were not revealed then.  If done after yearend, a call report disclosing their financial condition would have to be filed.  Such a final accounting, if available, would illuminate not a credit union collapse, but  a failure of effective examination and supervisory oversight.

The continuing danger of these unopposed regulatory precedents is that they encourage further use of arbitrary power.  Credit unions see this.  Examiners will take their cues to assert their unchecked authority.  Recommendations (DORs)  wlll order credit unions to sell millions in underwater investments or borrow unneeded loans solely to reduce modeled interest rate risk will be issued.  The threat of further action and CAMELS downgrades is all that is needed to force immediate, costly options that reduce member capital.

Lack of regulatory transparency at  critical points in any credit union’s circumstances perpetuates unchecked and unaccountable regulatory power.  Secret actions always hovering over credit unions in difficulty or who might otherwise oppose NCUA’s findings.

NCUA Suppression of Member Board Participation

 

On May 18, 2021, I filed 21-FOI-00083 “for the requests, communications, and NCUA’s approval or denial of all federal credit unions over $5 billion in assets that have requested to change their  standard bylaw for nominations for directors by petition.”

Only two FCU’s have done this: Navy FCU and Penfed.   Navy had filed two comment letters in 2004 and 2005 suggesting changes in the standard bylaw requirements.  However, it was not until September 11, 2019, that the Director of CURE approved these requested changes which:

  • Raised the requirement for members to call a special meeting to 1,000 members or one fifth of one percent of total membership, whichever is greater.
  • Raised the requirement for nominations by petition to the greater of 1,000 members of one-fifth of one percent of the total membership.

The previous maximum bylaw signature requirement for both events was 500.  Under the revised bylaw, one-fifth of 1% of members would be 26,000.  The FOIA response denied much of the correspondence as to why this would be needed.

However, one can surmise the logic from the two comments from 2004/5.  Navy is so large and important that it would be too uncertain to just let anyone run for the board by collecting 500 member signatures.

Penfed’s circumstances are slightly different. Prior to this change in their bylaws,  a member had received the minimum 500 signatures to appear on the ballot in the just completed election.  The candidate was a former board member, familiar with the process. He was informed he did not receive sufficient votes to be elected, but was not shown the election numbers.

Shortly after, Penfed applied for and was quickly approved for twofold bylaw changes approved June 24, 2020 by the director of CURE:

  • A special members’ meeting now requires 1,000 signatures or one-fifth of total members but a number not to exceed 2,000. There are additional requirements before the meeting can be called however.  One includes the formation of a five-member committee to meet with the board.  The committee will be bound by whatever agreement is reached on behalf of the petitioners; if no agreement, only then can the call for the meeting be sent.
  • Nominations for the board by petition now require total signatures of the greater of 1,000 or one-fifth of total members (no upper limit). No nominations will be accepted from the floor if there is only one candidate per vacancy.  All board nominating committee candidates must be sent to members 75 days prior to the meeting.  Nominations by petition must be filed with the secretary 40 days prior to the same meeting.  This timing effectively provides members just 35 days to get signatures to add to the Board’s selected candidates after they are first disclosed.

With this bylaw, Penfed board nominations by member petition would require 5,800 signatures versus the original 500 maximum.

The effect of both bylaw changes is to virtually eliminate any chance of a board nomination by petition.   Note these changes were done without any member input, no announcement by either credit union or NCUA of this fundamental change in the bylaw election process.  And now that it is public . . .

Election Conduct Is Not NCUA’s Responsibility

NCUA avoids any involvement in board elections.   Four members of Virginia Credit Union submitted nominations for the annual board election. Here is the background to their effort in a post, The Fix Is In.  The members were not interviewed by the nominating committee They asked NCUA for assistance.

Regional Director John Kutchey ‘s reply summarized in  a Credit Union Times report  reads in part:

In his letter, Kutchey said the NCUA considers the right to participate in the director election process a fundamental, material right for members of a federally chartered credit union.

“The FCU Bylaws provisions that implement this right include, but are not limited to, a requirement that the FCU’s nominating committee interview each interested member that ‘meets any qualifications established by the nominating committee,’” Kutchey wrote. “Also, the FCU Bylaws provide alternative processes to run for a board seat for members interested in serving on the FCU’s board who are not selected by the FCU’s nominating committee.”

But that is just for FCU’s, not state charters.  There has never been a reported instance of NCUA ever enforcing this interpretation for FCU’s.

Despite Kutchey’s high sounding phrases, NCUA has approved bylaw changes and board nomination outcomes that make a charade of democratic governance.  Credit union boards and CEO’s see NCUA turning a blind eye to the repeated self-nomination and perpetual control closing any election choice.  So, except for extremely rare events, boards turn into self-perpetuating, self selected directors.  Member-owner governance via the annual meeting election does not exist.  And with it a critical accountability check on the ambitions of the CEO and boards.

Mergers: A Game Without Rules

Knowing that they are insulated from any real member accountability or oversight, credit union CEO’s and boards feel unrestricted when they decide to seek mergers with other credit unions.  The basic test is not what is in the members’ best interest, but where can management and board get the best deal for themselves—sometimes right before the CEO makes an exit.

Today credit union “voluntary” mergers are a game without any rules. Financially successful credit unions combine  rhetorical generalizations referring to scale, common culture and shared vision. There is no pretense of fiduciary responsibility including the required duties of care for member-owner assets or of loyalty, to always act in the best interests of members.

NCUA blindly administers the process oblivious to the self-dealing and incoherent examples such as cross country mergers.  When challenged the Agency has two responses, one before and one for after.

Their first defense is that it is the members’ choice.  Note that this is most often the first time the members will be asked to vote on anything.

The Agency expects members who have put their confidence and money in the credit union, often for generations, to act contrary to the recommendations of the leaders to whom they have entrusted their resources and financial relationships.  And if a member or group were to speak up, the credit union will either refuse to answer their concern or, use the full corporate resources against their opposing members. (multiple examples to follow)

The members are not even provided the same information credit unions are required to submit to NCUA on the merger package checklist. The owners are effectively removed from seeing the same data and information the regulator does.

But the worst part of NCUA’s studied neglect is its role if all the promises, undertakings and promised merger benefits fail to materialize.  What happens afterwards? The answer is nothing happens, no matter how flagrant the violations promised in the Member Notice which NCUA approved.

NCUA has published a booklet called Truth in Mergers.  It promotes merger as a strategic option, oblivious of any accountability to the owners.

When a merger turns out to be merely a planned sale to a third party with no background or interest other than asset acquisition, what are  jilted members to do?

Here is NCUA’s reply from page 21 of the Merger Manual:

Take measures to enforce the merger agreement. How can merger agreement provisions be enforced when one party to the agreement no longer exists? NCUA’s Office of General Counsel suggests that a merging credit union name in the contract the third-party beneficiaries with standing to enforce the contract. For example, if the continuing credit union agrees to keep a branch open for at least one year, the agreement would note that the members of the discontinuing credit union are beneficiaries with standing. Likewise, if staff is promised a comparable position in the continuing credit union, the merger agreement should note their interest in the position, not to be terminated without cause for one year. Because these matters would fall under state contract law, the wording should be state specific.

Don’t come to NCUA if you have been duped or conned and stripped of your cooperative savings.  Not NCUA’s problem.  Go find an attorney and use your personal resources to fight the people who just screwed you.

I will present multiple examples of this kind of self-serving mentality and NCUA’s impotence even when confronted with the facts.

A Dangerous Myth

The bottom line is that NCUA does not believe in or support owner rights.  A cooperative member is nothing more than a customer.   Chairman Harper’s regulatory philosophy as presented in a GAC address is revealing.  Note especially his ending words — the logic that credit unions do not discriminate because they are owned by their members is a dangerous myth and one that should end. While he might have intended otherwise, the real dangerous myth he evokes is “credit unions are owned by their members” His full comment:

Since joining the Board, I have focused on strengthening the NCUA’s consumer financial protection and fair lending resources. Given the consumer compliance examination program for comparably sized community banks, our program’s scope is insufficient, especially for those credit unions between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets. We should be doing more, and we can do more.

I understand this is not a popular opinion in this room. Many within the industry maintain that the NCUA should primarily focus on its safety-and-soundness mission or that the agency has not demonstrated a significant rationale for a stronger consumer compliance program.

Some also contend that the cooperative nature of credit unions prevents their lending practices from being discriminatory because their primary purpose is to serve their members’ needs. However, the logic that credit unions do not discriminate because they are owned by their members is a dangerous myth and one that should end.

Boards and CEO’s have taken their cues from this amoral stance.   When NCUA has no belief in owner-members, does nothing to support democratic participation and keeps members in the dark about their own activities, is it any wonder that CEO’s and boards believe they are completely free to decide their credit union’s future without any regulatory or member accountability.

Examples to follow.

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.