Category: Cooperative Design

Posted on

A Hearing Today on Member Rights in a Credit Union

The credit union democratic cooperative model  is simple. The legal equality of each member’s voting role is intended to facilitate economic equality.

The intent of the one-person-one-vote in governance is that when accessing common resources, each member is on the same footing.  If one person is better or worse off than another, that should not affect their ability to access credit.

In almost all other for-profit organizations, control is exercised by who holds the most shares, or through classes with special voting rights.

Member Rights

A credit unions’s bylaws is the primary document implementing member rights.  NCUA’s bylaw description runs 45 pages. “The FCU Bylaws address a broad range of matters concerning a credit union’s organization and governance, the relationship of the credit union to its members, and the procedures and rules a credit union follows.”

But who ensures that the bylaws are followed, both in letter and spirit?   Here is NCUA’s description of their role:

“The NCUA has discretion to take administrative actions when a credit union is not in compliance with its bylaws. If a potential violation is identified, the NCUA will carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances in deciding whether to take enforcement action. The NCUA will not generally take action against minor or technical violations, but emphasizes that it retains discretion to enforce the FCU Bylaws in appropriate cases, such as safety and soundness concerns or threats to fundamental, material credit union member rights.”  (emphasis added)

What happens when the bylaw procedures for nomination and election are administered so as to form without substance?  Or interpreted to enable incumbent directors to protect their positions and prerogatives?

A Live Case Study

Today, October 9,  an actual situation will be discussed.  The North Carolina Credit  Union  Commission will hold a special public meeting at 1:00 p.m. (dial in # (877)-402-9753, access code – 6601929.)

The primary purpose as published in the Notice:

“Discussion about concerns raised by a member of the public regarding recently approved changes to the State Employees’ Credit Union by-laws.”

This is how Jim Blaine sees the issue to be discussed in a recent post.

This will be another way the Annual Meeting and election of directors at SECU could have an impact far beyond this credit union’s circumstances.

The Annual meeting occurs tomorrow October 10th and will be lived stream.

Posted on

The Value of a Critic-Even a Dishonest One

Yesterday Politico published an article on credit unions written by a Brookings-based economist.

The title and subhead give his  message:

Credit Unions are Making Money off People Living Paycheck to Paycheck

The subhead:  There’s a new predator making money off overdraft fees: Credit unions.

The article was prompted by a new report required of all California state chartered banks and credit unions beginning with 2022 data.  The first report is 17 pages and lists in data tables the total overdraft and NSF fees collected by each firm the year.  The final column shows these dollar amounts as a percentage of net income and total revenue.

The author’s academic and /Congressional staff credentials suggest an objective study of an important topic: the  sources and importance of non interest income.

However as I read the article Mark Twain’s observation came to mind:  “Figures don’t lie, but liers do figure.”  But this shortcoming should not cause readers to overlook lessons from even a biased report.

In addition to the headline, the author’s target shows early on: And the first report of that data reveals that many California credit unions are taking millions from their most vulnerable customers and spending it on perks and bonuses for executives that resemble those of big banks more than nonprofits.

He uses one ratio from the study, total fees as a percentage of net income and then prepares a brief table listing the ratios for 12 credit unions (out of 114) with highest combined $ fees.

However this single ratio  can fluctuate dramatically depending on net income, independent of the numerator being studied-combined OD/NSF fees.   

To suggest  a credit union like FrontWave is abusing members because its ratio is 140% ignores the  study’s second ratio which is 12% of total income.  This ranking would give a very different listing.

FrontWave’s net income in 2022 declined by 33% from $8.4 to $5.6 million (.44 ROA) thus making the fee/net income ratio appear much higher than a “normal ROA” might present. 

Whereas Dow Great Western’s ratio was a negative -200% and only 1.32% of total income.  Was the credit union giving back more fees than they collected?  No, the credit union reported a negative net income.   Perhaps it should charge more fees?

Predetermined Conclusions

But the author has made up his mind, and now wants to condemn a practice without  examining other relevant details, such as the actual fee charged per transaction.  He downplays the other ratio of fees as a percentage of total revenue, which would show each firm’s  dependence on this one area of income.  These ratios range from 0% to 15%.

He makes no attempt to understand the data by calculating mean or the average fee-to-income ratio.  His conclusions  were formed before he knows what the data might mean:

Let’s be clear: Overdraft fees can be predatory. Every overdraft by definition turns money from someone who has run out of it into nearly pure profit for the bank or credit union that charged it because they get paid back immediately when the next deposit hits. Eighty percent of overdraft fees come from just 9 percent of account holders, highlighting that this product is targeted at people living paycheck to paycheck who run out of money from time to time.

Even given his limited analysis, the situation is dire:

The full picture among California’s 114 state-chartered credit unions is alarming.   And not just in California.  One suspects similar trends across the country. Several of Michigan’s largest credit unions have been sued for abusive overdraft practices and research from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shows credit unions averaging similar overdraft fees as banks.

A Political Lens

Near the end the author’s political bias comes out as he talks about democratic congressional members’ rhetoric against junk fees, and then this sentence:  Todd Harper, chair of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) has spoken out against abusive overdraft practices, but the NCUA Board has a Trump-appointed, Republican majority that is continuing to deregulate.

All three board members are Trump-appointed.   I’m not aware of any reg, rule or guidance letter that Harper has issued on this topic or that the other two board members opposed.  The singling out of Harper’s alleged views (no links) raises the question whether this is just a comrade in arms fronting for someone.

The Benefit of a Critic’s View

The author is a sceptic of credit union business practices:

California’s data shows that some credit unions are making a lot of money from overdraft fees. California’s largest state-chartered credit union, Golden 1, took $24 million in overdraft from their members, while spending $6 million a year for naming rights for an NBA stadium in Sacramento. North Island Credit Union bought naming rights for a famed music venue in Chula Vista and created an exclusive entrance, ticket discounts and other perks for some of its members while taking over $10 million last year in overdraft and non-sufficient funds charges from its members.

Do these business practices sound like those of nonprofits designed to provide basic banking services to people who share what the law calls a “common bond,” such as a workplace or other connection required for membership? Or are they what would expect from for-profit banks?

A Wakeup Call

The author asserts this not a single state issue:  California’s data is a wake-up call for the nation as a whole.

Even though he critiques mutiple credit union activities through his very limited NSF/OD lens, the article is a wake up call for those who believe credit unions are not banks in sheep’s clothing.

The article has all the indicators of a planned “hit piece” on credit unions.  But to try to kill the messenger or discount all the data is to miss the point.

Even when a public critic may be wrong, the better approach is to engage on the issue with facts and logic that show a grasp of the issue.  More rhetoric just makes the issue burn hotter but with no more light.

The need for fee transparency at the individual and macro levels is valid.  Credit unions, consumers and analysts/regulators can all better understand the role these fees have in a firm’s business model.

Comparisons between credit unions can be valuable, if all the data is known. How do some have very low fees and others relatively higher?

Members can more easily learn as they seek information on fees as they do now about loan and savings rates.

The author believes the only solution to his alarming “problem”  is more regulation.

But what kind of regulation would be relevant and consistent with one’s views on government’s role for coops and in markets? Should government regulate the fees somehow, mandate more disclosures, or control business practices as he hints by limiting fees to a percentage of net income.

More regulation will not stop credit unions tempted to put institutional priorities ahead of member-owner interests.

Regulators should ensure members have the tools to hold their repesentatives  to account-with the information and the ability to openly raise these topics in the traditional annual meeting and director election format.

What is missing is not regulation but the ability of members to play an effective governance role as owners in their credit union.   Enabling members to be more aware and active is critical to any credit union’s long term success.

No regulation, no matter how well intended, can replace members exercising their rights as owners.  That’s how markets are supposed to work.

Posted on

Are Credit Unions  Moving Beyond NCUA ?

In yesterday’s post on the recent borrowing trends in credit unions, every lender had stepped up to meet the 300%, $90  billion increase in external funding since June  of 2022.  Except one.

While the FHLB system and Fed  Reserve were the dominate providers, all sources from corporates (102%), to  sub debt (24%)  and even  other credit unions  (3,800%) increased their outstanding loans.

The only credit union provider that showed no borrowings was the credit union funded Central Liquidity Facility.   The last  CLF loan origination was in 2009.

CLF’s August 2023 Financial Condition

At August 31, 2023, the  CLF  Financial Statement reports  assets of $875million all invested in US Treasuries.  This was funded by $800 million from 390  credit unions’ capital stock purchases and another $17 million in deposits.  There were no corporate agent members. Retained earnings were $40.4 million.

Year-to-date operating expenses  are $1.3  million, up 86% from the prior year. Dividends on the credit union capital shares are paid quarterly.  The posted rates  would appear to trail the overnight Fed funds return by about 50 basis points.

The Facility’s borrowing authority-lending capacity was $19.7 billion.   And there were no loans.

Why Is There No CLF Lending?

The facility’s funding authority is large enough to  meet significant loan demand.   Its lending parameters mirror those of the Federal Reserve  which  had $30 billion outstanding to credit unions  at June 2023.   Moreover $20 billion of this total was advanced in the June quarter in the aftermath of  market uncertainty due to multiple banking failures.

How are all these other sources growing their portfolios  but the public-private  CLF partnership has no activity?

I have seen no effort by the CLF to promote its services to its own members.   It would be helpful to analyze how many of these 390 CLF shareholders had borrowings elsewhere.  However NCUA will not release the  members’ names so no one can check this possibility.

CLF the Missing  Player

The primary reference to the CLF by the three NCUA board members has been to urge congress to reinstate the special lending/agent membership options passed during the pandemic which expired at the end of 2022.

However today, the CLF lacks neither financial resources nor authority to offer loans that could meet member needs now–as all other lending institutions are  doing.   That is how these firms, public or private survive.

One might  speculate about why there is no CLF effort.   Does it have the operational capability and professional  skills to make loans?   For example, can credit unions even preposition collateral?

In prior lending activity the CLF  partnered with the corporate network which did the underwriting  and disbursements but drew on CLF funding. This operational  capability was lost when the NCUA ended this option by closing U. S. Central.

The  last CLF loans were $5 million each to the conserved WesCorp  and US Central in 2009.

Those two loans were an extension of the NCUSIF’s support.    No other corporates were offered CLF loans even though several had similar exposures to  underwater securities.

In  short, the  CLF  loans were just an extension of NCUA’s supervisory actions, not a liquidity lifeline .

My Thought on Why the  CLF is no Longer Relevant

In addition to its operational incapacity,  I believe credit unions have realized that, unlike other options, the CLF is not an actual  public-private partnership.   Its lending response  is at the whim of NCUA supervisory priorities, not credit union need.

Credit unions do not view the CLF as a reliable partner in times of balance sheet stress.

Therefore, they have moved beyond the CLF for the more proven reliabilities from the multiple options now available–both debt and subdebt.

In short,  credit unions  no longer need the CLF.  They have plenty of tested alternatives.  Ones that don’t impose supervisory judgments on top of collateral values.

For credit unions the CLF is a vestigial  organ, still within the body but not serving any system purpose.   It  continues tp accumulate  retained earnings but has no balance sheet risk.   The income  pays an increasing expense load (up 86% so far in 2023) even with no operational activity.   The regular members shares are subsidizing the  facility  which pays  a  below market quarterly dividend.

The challenges are not a lack  of institutional or member need— just look at the expanding FHLB lending programs.   Rather the challenge is leadership.

This  is  not a situation requiring  a congressional legislative fix.   What’s missing is NCUA’s ability to partner with the members who fund the CLF and develop collaborative solutions to  benefit the cooperative system and their members.

It’s  been done before.   It is being done now by multiple organizations and firms (see examples below).   Credit unions have seen these more reliable options and have decided to move on from an impotent NCUA-CLF.

This situation also raises  a broader issue than the future of the CLF. When might this liquidity experience cause some credit unions  to consider moving even further away from the coop system  altogether.

NOTE: Examples of Proactive Efforts to Serve Credit Union’s Current Liquidity Needs

The following are  examples of  lenders and institutions with outreach to credit unions in this critical liquidity period in 2023.

First,  is the announcement of the  Federal Reserves’ new Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) on March 12, 2023 for which credit unions were eligible.

The following is from from a  promotion highlighting CD  options:

Inclusiv/Capital and Primary Financial will host a webinar to discuss deposit strategies and resources to support your credit union’s impact lending and liquidity management strategies.

Primary Financial is a credit union service organization (CUSO) owned jointly by 10 corporate credit unions nationwide. This unique ownership structure gives Primary Financial potential relationships  with credit unions across America.

Examples of FHLB special programs and assistance are in numerous press stories:

Ken Bauer, EVP & CLO, OneAZ Credit Union:

“Particularly in Arizona, more of a person’s monthly wages are going to housing than ever before,” Bauer says. “We asked ourselves how we could help members navigate this market and bridge that gap to homeownership.”

To provide members with down payment assistance, the credit union is working with two grant programs offered through the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB).

In  Wisconsin:

Summit Credit Union of Madison, Wis. ($6.6 billion in assets, 248,245 members as of June 30) announced Thursday that it was able to help 70 borrowers through the $700,000 in grants it was provided this year by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. Buyers must earn no more than 80% of the area’s median income.

The grants reduce down payments, closing costs or pre-paid expenses by $10,000 for each of the 70 borrowers who benefitted from January to August 2023.

This is  Ryan  Donovan President and Chief Executive Officer, Council of Federal Home Loan Bank promoting the system’s “private-public” partnerships:

The Federal Home Loan Bank system is a terrific example of a private-public partnership that works, providing tremendous benefit to #homebuyers. Through our members and their activity, we help save homebuyers more than $13 billion each year in interest payments; we facilitate an additional 16% of #mortgage originations; we help make the 30-year fixed rate mortgage an opportunity for many homebuyers; we support community financial institutions across the country; and, we’re one of the largest private-sector contributors to affordable housing efforts.

One can also list numerous financial consultants, ALM  advisory firms,  and brokers seeking to assist credit union liquidity needs, for a fee.  But there is no CLF outreach.

 

Posted on

The Borrowing-Liquidity Trends in Credit unions

From a September 2023 CEO’s team memo update:

Liquidity

“We remain laser focused on managing liquidity risk in this environment of aggregate decreasing money supply.  

“We finally sold our $18 million pool of auto loans that we’ve been marketing  for two months.  As with all other loan sales, we will service the pool in order to maintain and grow member relationships.  The transaction generated cash of just over $15.3 million.  

“We expect to end the month at a loan to deposit ratio in the 102% neighborhood, down from a high of 106.41% in July.  Our goal remains to reduce this ratio to no more than 100% by year end.  

The best way to accomplish this is through acquisition of core deposits from our friends and neighbors in our primary market.  We’re also marketing another pool of loans so that we don’t have to slow our lending origination machine any further.”

This not an isolated event.  Yesterday’s Credit Union Times summarized  auto loan  securitizations by credit unions since 2019, with two totaling $501 million in this past week.

Economic Forces Drying Up Liquidity

Two factors have disrupted normal  credit union ALM liquidity management over for the year ending June 2023.

The first is the 18 month long increase in interest rates by the Federal Reserve to reduce inflation.  The process began on March 17, 2022. The Fed raised its overnight  Fed Funds target from effectively zero to today’s range of 5.25-5.50%.

The Fed’s intent is to slow the economy, lower demand for financing and lower inflation to 2%.

The second was the sudden bank crisis in March of this year.  Here is the cascading sequence of events from one summary report:

In the lead-up period to the crisis, many banks within the United States had invested their reserves in U.S. Treasury securities, which had been paying low interest rates for several years. As the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates in 2022,  bond prices declined, decreasing the market value of bank capital reserves, causing some banks to incur unrealized losses. To maintain liquidity, Silicon Valley Bank sold its bonds and realized steep losses.

The first bank to fail, cryptocurrency-focused Silvergate Bank, announced it would wind down on March 8, 2023 due to losses suffered in its loan portfolio. Two days later, upon announcement of an attempt to raise capital, a bank run occurred at Silicon Valley Bank, causing it to collapse and be seized by regulators that day. Signature Bank, a bank that frequently did business with cryptocurrency firms, was closed by regulators two days later on March 12, with regulators citing systemic risks. . .

The collapses of First Republic Bank, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank were the second-, third- and fourth-largest bank failures in the history of the United States.

The Fed created a new lending option to cope with the uncertainties resulting from these failures. To calm rattled financial markets and support banks, the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) began on March 13, offering maturity dates of up to one year.

The BTFP’s role was focused on  firms that had large unrealized losses on their government bonds and potentially at risk of large-scale deposit withdrawals.  The intent was to prevent losses from forced sales of underwater securities to fund deposit outflows.

The new program charges a higher rate than the discount window.  One other important difference  is that while the BTFP requires banks to offer collateral, it values the collateral at par, rather than on a mark-to-market basis.

The Credit Union System’s  Borrowings at June 2023

Credit unions did not have the lending or deposit concentrations of the failed banks. But like all financial institutions, their term investments have declined in value.

Members were seeing very competitive savings rates in money market  funds and CD specials.  Share growth for the year ended June 2023  was just 1.4%.  At June 2022, the 12-month growth was 8.1%.

Loans however are still increasing at double digit rates (12.8%). Short term liquid funds are declining.

One response to tightening liquidity was increased borrowings. The table below shows the five most recent quarter-ending  borrowing totals and their  source for the credit union system.

Total Credit Union System Borrowings    (June ’22 to June ’23)

Source:  NCUA call reports

The trends from the data show:

  • Total number of credit union borrowers grew 50% from 838 to 1,260 in one year.
  • Outstanding loans increased by $90.1 billion or 300%.
  • The Fed Reserve Bank (FRB) became a significant new source growing from 1.6% to funding 25.5% ($30.8 billion) of credit union borrowings.
  • The largest lender was the FHLB system increasing from $26.1 billion (86%) to $84 billion (69.7%) of total loans.

Total borrowings of $120.4 billion are 5.4% of total industry assets (compared to 1.4% at June 2022) and 55% of June 2023 capital.

System liquidity is tightening. The second observation is that in the market uncertainty following the banking failures and continuing liquidity demand, the credit union funded facility, the NCUA-managed CLF still has zero borrowings.

The last CLF loans were paid off in  2010.  There has not been a single borrowing in the thirteen years since.

The Federal Reserve loan window stepped up quickly and creatively to respond to events.  The FHLB system expanded its traditional lending role.  The CLF has the borrowing capacity and legal authority to match the needs being served by these two primary lenders. But it is “missing in action.”

Tomorrow I will evaluate what the CLF’s absence means for NCUA and the credit union system.

 

 

Posted on

Doing the Right Thing

Yesterday a long investigative report on the contested SECU board director election was published in The Assembly.  This digital investigative journal’s role is to publish “deep reporting on power and place in North Carolina.”   Carli Brosseau has written a lengthy description of the circumstances around this election.

The article is well- researched, provides multiple points of view, and important context.   She contacted me as part of her reporting.   I referred to my blogs on SECU for why this event was significant for the entire credit union system.

What It means to be a Credit Union

Carli provides a straight forward description of their unique design for her readers: “Credit unions are set up as not-for-profit cooperatives where every member, no matter their account balance, is an equal part- owner.  That ownership share is the reason members get a say in who’s on the board. It’s also part of what makes them different from banks, which are for-profit and owned by investors. “

Her story provides two themes about how this coop democratic design is at the core of this election.

The first is the multiple ways the incumbent leadership has tried to thwart the members’ role in elections.  The nominating committee refused  three member petitions to be on the ballot.  The “self nomination” process was changed to limit to ten days the time to gather the required 500 signatures once the “official’ candidates were announced.  The annual meeting process has been modified to prevent traditional new and old business from being brought to the floor.  This was how the initial member concerns had been raised.

This recounting of board incumbent’s trying to protect their position and to discourage or ignore member views is not new.  In almost all cases thwarting these attempts  is successful.  The result is no democratic coop governance.  Incumbency perpetuates itself. Boards crystallize into a ruling elite.

This SECU example is important because it shows that even in a very large coop, the members can make their voice heard-albeit with much perseverance.

The Debate Over Loan Pricing

The second element of democratic design at issue is how should the loan and saving products offered members be priced.   Should members using the same service such as an auto loan or a CD be given the same pricing?  Or, should those who are better off receive more favorable terms than those who have lesser funds?

SECU’s adoption of risk-based lending is the other theme in the story that is relevant for credit unions role as an alternative to for-profit banks.

Most financial firms and credit unions use risk-based pricing today.   SECU is an outlier. Its 85-year history shows a single pricing model can succeed. Carli’s story clearly presents these contrasting views of its role in SECU.

CEO Brady’s logic and initial results are reported as follows:

“SECU opted for a more compressed pricing structure than most other lenders use, said Leigh Brady,

“SECU launched risk-based lending for car loans in March, with a 4.5 percent spread between what a borrower in the lowest credit tier pays compared to a borrower in the top tier, Brady said. And the credit union’s core members—state employees and retirees—get a 0.5 percent discount.

“From Brady’s perspective, the policy is working. More members are opting for car loans from SECU, and a greater share of those borrowers have credit scores in the top tier—18 percent in March 2022, and 28 percent a year later, according to data Brady provided.

“SECU is still willing to lend to people with low credit scores, she said. “There are lenders that just absolutely will not lend to anyone below a 660 credit score,” said Brady. “We do. We lend below 540.”

“She thinks the new loan policy is actually fairer than the old one.

“Brady said she came to recognize the “harsh reality” that SECU had been overcharging its members with the best credit.

“Another factor, director Wooten said, was persistent questioning by regulators about the diversity of the loan portfolio. “We had regulators that were always concerned that we had all of our lending in one bucket,” he said. “We had all of these mortgage loans, and they were in this bucket where most of the folk were in, you know, this middle tier or lower.”

The contrasting view is presented by one member-nominated candidate’s letter sent to SECU’s chair following the risk based pricing discussion at the 2022 annual meeting:

“Clements laid out his credentials—he had been a member for 45 years, currently serves on the local advisory board, and was previously on the SECU Foundation board and a loan review committee—and said he was appalled by the board’s adoption of risk-based lending. “This policy clearly signifies that all our members are NOT equal.”

What is a Credit Union’s Purpose?

The debate is joined.  How should a democratic, member-owned  coop behave after the votes are  counted.   Does this democratic foundation end at the ballot box, or is it intended to carry over in the business practices of the credit union?  Should a member with more resources get a better deal than one with less?

Or even more direct, should those with a lesser financial status be charged more on loans so that the well-to-do pay less?

Both models can and do work.  Is coop design intended to perpetuate the financial inequalities that members bring to their relationships or to give everyone  an equal place on the financial starting line?

The distribution of wealth in America is increasing year after year.  Those that have the least or know the least, pay the most. If the coop model does not address these growing disparities in financial outcomes, how can democratic economic opportunity be realized?

The article presents clearly the credit union challenge of democratic governance and opportunity in a capitalist economy where accomplishment and status is often equated with personal wealth.

What’s Next

After interviewing many of the principals, the author concludes with this outlook:

“It’s unclear which vision will win members’ approval in the board election, or how many people will seize the chance to have a say.”

Now it is up to the members to decide.  This is how the democracy is supposed to function. This is the first-year online voting is  an option.

One person, one vote is an important aspect of coop uniqueness.  Letting the members vote is Doing the Right Thing.

On October 10th, the livestream link of SECU’s annual meeting will be available from the SECU website www.ncsecu.org at 1:00 p.m.  Tune in.

 

 

Posted on

Largest Ever Credit Union Board Election Closes October 3

The 2.6 million members of the State Employees Credit Union, North Carolina are voting among six candidates to fill three board vacancies.
This is the highest number of potential voters for an election ever conducted in a credit union.
Online voting ends October 3rd.  In person voting can take place at the October 10th Annual Meeting where the election outcome will be announced.
While this event is vital to SECU’s future, it could also impact every credit union in America.   The public perception  of cooperative member-owner governance could be transformed by this example.  Here’s why:
The second largest credit union has implemented a process that provides every member a chance to vote.  There is no excuse for any credit union not holding a franchise for director elections in the future in which all members can participate, not just those few able to show up at the annual meeting.
The current practice of election of directors by “acclamation” at the required annual meeting with few members in attendance, should become the exception, not the rule.
What does democratic oversight mean if members are never able to vote?
The member are engaged in their ownership role,  a unique but rarely practiced aspect of cooperative design.  They are transformed into more than customers. See letter which follows.
The directors are learning the importance of communication with members.   Leadership is more than closed monthly meetings, private decision making and a scripted annual meeting.
Directors are the owners’ representatives. They are not remote “trustees” hand picked by their predecessors based on personal relationships or supposed expertise.
Directors in turn must respect members’ ownership role  with transparency and continual dialogue.
The cooperative design is on public display.  The North Carolina press is following the story.  This election is a precedent for members everywhere who want to see more responsive leadership from their Boards.

A Member Explains His Vote

Here is how one member feels about this election in a letter to the local newspaper,  Oxford Ledger:

North Carolina’s most Impactful election this fall will surprise you.

The most crucial upcoming election in North Carolina isn’t for a governmental position but for a seat on the North Carolina State Employees Credit Union (SECU) Board. For over 85 years, SECU has provided affordable financial services to the state’s employees, teachers, and their families, applying consistent low interest rates on mortgages, loans, and credit cards for all members, regardless of their economic background.

Unfortunately, the current SECU Board, composed mainly of politically influential former state employees, has strayed from this equitable approach. They’ve begun charging higher interest rates to middle-class and lower-income members while offering lower rates to wealthier individuals.

This shift appears to prioritize the board’s interests over serving the hundreds of thousands of Highway Patrolmen, Correctional Officers, Department of Transportation workers, and Teachers that SECU was originally established to assist.

Moreover, the current board has reduced services, increased interest rates for most members, and neglected to raise rates for savings accounts.

They’ve also altered the election rules and bylaws to maintain their power and hinder potential opposition.

To rectify this situation, it’s crucial to vote for the three self-nominated candidates who advocate for restoring SECU to its historical mission. The board’s changes threaten to transform SECU into a conventional bank that favors the wealthy, undermining its original purpose.

Voting for these candidates is vital for safeguarding our Credit Union. Visit secuvote.ey.com before October 3, 2023, to support this cause and ensure SECU serves its members as it was intended.

Camden Carver

Member/Owner of the North Carolina State Employee’s Credit Union

Former Employee

This event matters, so tune in on October 10 to learn the results.  Unfortunately at this point SECU ended the previous practice of a live virtual broadcast of the annual meeting-not a positive sign when a widespread concern of members was open communication and transparency.

Posted on

People Helping People-A Major Government Agency’s Program

“People Helping People”

No, this is not  NCUA’S  motto.  It is the IRS’s. And it relies on volunteers.

“The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program offers free tax help to low- to moderate-income (generally, $60,000 and below) people who cannot prepare their own tax returns. Certified volunteers sponsored by various organizations receive training to help prepare basic tax returns in communities across the country.

“VITA sites are generally located at community and neighborhood centers, libraries, schools, shopping malls, and other convenient locations(such as credit unions). Most locations also offer free electronic filing.”

Free Tax Return Preparation for You by Volunteers

“If you are an individual interested in becoming a volunteer, but need to find an organization in your area to link up with, please submit your contact information using the VITA/TCE Volunteer and Partner Sign Up. Your information will be forwarded to the appropriate local IRS office.

VITA Volunteer Testimonials

“One VITA Site Coordinator had this to say about her VITA site, “I feel comfortable saying all taxpayers using our services were extremely grateful for the patience, expertise and timeliness of volunteers preparing the tax return.

We have many repeat ‘customers’ from year to year and – even during the down months – we are greeted throughout the community with a warm hello and ‘see you at tax time.’ This speaks highly for the good work these gifted volunteers perform.”

A VITA volunteer stated this about her volunteer experience, “VITA helped me acquire more knowledge on my tax benefits. I really love it because you are learning and helping the community at the same time. It’s the best feeling.”

An Example for the Cooperative Regulator

This is the IRS — a government agency which seeks and encourages volunteers to carry out its mission of tax filing and compliance.   The words come right out of the credit union playbook.   I wonder why this spirit is not part of NCUA’s game plan?

Posted on

Two Ways of Reflecting on  Life’s Possibilities: The Poetic and the Practical

The Poetic

A teenager’s college essay on the value and difficulty of alternative ways of seeing the world  from the Free Press:

“In another scene from The History Boys, one English schoolboy preparing for Oxbridge entrance exams, Timms, asks Hector why they are reading the poetry of A. E. Housman instead of doing something “practical.” 

Timms: I don’t always understand poetry!

Hector: You don’t always understand it? Timms, I never understand it. But learn it now, know it now, and you will understand it. . . whenever.

Timms: I don’t see how we can understand it. Most of the stuff poetry’s about hasn’t happened to us yet.

Hector: But it will, Timms. It will. And then you will have the antidote ready!

Like Timms, I sometimes don’t understand what I’m learning or memorizing when I study poetry, but I believe Hector when he says it prepares us for the very real events of the world—going to war, falling in love, falling out of love, making a friend, losing a friend, having a child, losing a child. 

Understanding ancient authors as they understood themselves is the surest means of finding alternatives to our current way of seeing the world.”

The Pragmatic

From Jake Meador’s essay, The Misunderstood Reason Why Millions of Americans Stopped Going to Church:

“Contemporary America simply isn’t set up to promote mutuality, care, or common life. Rather, it is designed to maximize individual accomplishment as defined by professional and financial success.

Such a system leaves precious little time or energy for forms of community that don’t contribute to one’s own professional life or, as one ages, the professional prospects of one’s children. Workism reigns in America, and because of it, community in America, religious community included, is a math problem that doesn’t add up.” 

Posted on

The Extraordinary Advantage of Local

IN 1973 a critic of mainstream economic thought was published in  Small is Beautiful: A Study  of Economics As If People Mattered by E. F. Schumacher.

The author espoused a principle that small, appropriate technologies, policies, and polities were a superior alternative to the accepted ethos of “bigger is better”.

His thesis is the exact opposite of the forces driving market capitalism   In a competitive economy firms strive for market  dominance to achieve  monopolistic-like power to better control  the organization’s financial outcomes.

Schumacher advocated for a  “persons-first” or humanistic economics as opposed to contemporary theories which emphasized institutional financial success over human well-being–sometimes caricatured as trickle-down economics.

In the same decade of the 1970’s, active credit union charters reached a peak of nearly 22,000.   Some saw credit unions as an example of the book’s relevance.

While the author’s critique may have been on point, I believe his alternative approach was insufficient.  For the antidote to overpowering corporate influence is not small, but local.

What Local Enables-Growing Big by Staying Small

Local does not necessarily mean small.  One of the geniuses of the business model developed by the $50 billion asset State Employees Credit Union North Carolina (SECU) was the ability to grow to become the second largest credit union by staying local, that is acting small.

This “local” strategy required providing authority and responsibility for the credit union’s operations all the way down to each branch.  Loan decisions, collections and business priorities were set at the branch level.  Each branch’s connections to their communities were enabled through dozens of local advisory boards, member loan reviews,  and  engaged local community relationships.

Each branch operated as a “small” credit union  enabled by central funding and resources including back office transaction and delivery system support, and an ATM network and call center.   The result was 85 years of continuous growth creating an employee culture based on “doing the right thing” for the members.

This approach continues in other credit unions.  In an article on economic empowerment in a new area,  Golden 1 Credit Union’s  Erica  Taylor, VP for Community  Relations, summarized  their approach in  a disadvantaged community  as  hyper-local and multipronged:

If all goes well — and the concentrated, hyperlocal investment works in Del Paso Heights — Golden 1 hopes to partner with other communities to replicate the initiative throughout the state.

“One of the biggest lessons learned is there is no one-size-fits-all solution,” Taylor says. “Each neighborhood, state, or municipality is going to have unique needs. It’s important to start by asking what those needs are and listening.”

Branch Expansions Continue

I believe this advantage is also reflected in the continuing expansion of credit union branches.   As reported yesterday in a review  of midyear data: ” A CU Times analysis of NCUA data released Sept. 7 shows the nation’s 4,780 credit unions . . .had 21,835 locations as of June 30, having added 53 since March.”

Another number from the article: The average credit union branch in June served 6,370 members, up from 6,335 in March and 5,828 in December 2019.

Presence matters.   Branches are still the major investment for demonstrating a credit union’s relevance for members in a community.

The  Decline of Local institutions

It is often difficult for small organizations to survive alone, without the support of external expertise.  Especially in a community or section of a city that is economically stagnant.

When one looks at long serving organizations that continue to thrive locally such as the Boy/Girl Scouts, college sororities/fraternities, the PTA, national food franchises, the Catholic church and many other successful institutions, the formula is local leadership and centralized common support.

The following  excerpt is from an interim pastor whose responsibility was to close a local church which could no longer sustain itself.  In this summary event, he laments the loss of this “local” presence:

It is hard to imagine another place where this particular group of people would have gathered together for a common purpose. Eugene Peterson reminds us in his book Subversive Spirituality:

“The work of salvation is always local. Geography is as much a part of the gospel as theology. The creation of land and water, star and planet, tree and mountain, grass and flower provides ground and environment for the blessings of providence and the mysteries of salvation … nothing spiritual in our scripture is served up apart from material … this street, these trees, this humidity, these houses. Without reverence for the locale, obedience floats on the clouds of abstraction.”

Imagine being told you can no longer go to a place that you returned to every day for decades, a place you returned to not because you had to, but because it was where you wanted to be. But now it is going to be closed, sold, and, depending on the buyer, it might be torn down and turned into an apartment complex or a storage facility.

This is the same loss that occurs when a credit union merges. Leadership and focus move away from long standing community ties.   It is an  economic, emotional and existential loss for members and their community.

A current interpretation of Schumacher’s “humanistic economics” is George Hofheimer.   He worked for Filene and CUES for decades and is now an industry consultant.   He wrote Banking on a Human Scale to describe how credit unions build relationships, implementing the advantage of local solutions.

His thesis:  “In a world dominated by scale and technology, smaller community based  credit unions and banks have the chance to serve more people and serve them better by making banking more human.”

SECU turned the widely practiced financial growth model in financial services of a centralized, top-down command and control  on its head.  It grew by staying local in focus, execution and relevance.

It implemented the oldest rule of political success which is “all politics is local.”  This reality is how people see the impact of their representative’s decisions on their lives, jobs and communities.  Are they in touch or a remote elite?

Credit unions, as democratically designed, have this same political capacity which when enabled, no competitor can match.  Have you ever tried to oppose a Capital One branch closing for example?

The founder and current CEO of Nvidia, the fastest growing technology stock this year, has a philosophy described by one employee: “He is big on staying as small as possible while still doing big things. “

For credit unions I would insert the word “local” for small.   Member-owners can see how their money is being used and feel their participation matters.  SECU’s experience shows how powerful it is to be large and local at the same time.  Scale, branding and technology cannot defeat the entrenched advantages of community pride and loyalty.

 

Posted on

Transparency: A Test for the Cooperative System

“Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

That is the official slogan of The Washington Post, adopted in 2017. The slogan was introduced on the newspaper’s website on February 22, 2017.  The phrase was popularized by investigative journalist Bob Woodward, who used it in a 2007 piece criticizing government secrecy.

Yesterday long-time credit union supporter and reporter Frank Diekmann published an “editorial” on the CU Today web site, Why NCUA Should Require Credit Unions to Disclose What They’re Paying for Banks.

Based on years of covering bank purchases, he critiques the absence of meaningful data in many of these transitions.  No information is provided, such as the purchase price,  that would show how the members collective capital is being used to pay off owners of banks.  Here is some of his logic:

“Why the secrecy?

“It’s quite the hypocritical disconnect for a CU community that defends the federal tax exemption largely on the back of the “structure,” that is that credit unions are democratically run cooperatives where the members are the owners, to then turn around and say certain information belongs to some but not others (never a good sign in a democracy) and that some cooperators are more equal than others. . .

“There is another big, CU-principal-grounded reason for letting members know how much of their money is being spent and for what, and it’s a real ironic kicker: if the acquiring credit union were a publicly traded bank buying up another bank, it would be required to disclose the purchase price, and analysts/customers/the market would have the opportunity to put the ROI under the microscope. . .

“And then there is this other “let’s not go there” issue. But I say, let’s do. While this may not be the primary reason for buying a bank, it’s also not an innocent bystander: CEOs who have language in their contracts tying their compensation to asset size are getting raises out of these deals. Members have a right to know about that, especially since—again—it’s their money being used to goose the comp.

“It’s time to dispense with the rosy sounding but generic banality and to specifically document how members of the acquiring credit union benefit, and how the former customers are better off, with some real dollar figures around the savings on loans and fees and the increased rates on deposits. You know, how much more is going into people’s pockets?”

Transparency Is the Lifeblood of Democracy

Frank’s concern about credit union’s secrecy extends far beyond bank purchases.  Boards and CEO’s have grown used  to not disclosing or even explaining anything to members especially around their leadership roles and activities.

Credit unions want to retain their “private” character, but to act unfettered in the public market place.  CEO and board salaries are  not required to be disclosed by federal charters.  For states the information is supposed to be provided in the 990 filing, but it is often late, after the major participants have left and not reviewed by any authority for accuracy.  Many credit unions check the disclosure box on the report as provided only “on demand.”

While some merger disclosures were required from a 2018 rule, NCUA’s oversight of the rule is inconsistent and lacking in any meaningful effort to inform members about the transaction.  Merger actors have perfected the arts of circumventing required benefit disclosures.

The supposed democratic governance model of one person one vote in annual board elections never happens, because there are no elections.   The board controls the nominations to just equal the vacancies.

Even when the rare election takes place, the ability of members to learn about candidates’ position is not offered by the credit union-except for incumbents.  See the current SECU board contest as an example.

In almost all other institutions dealing with the public, the SEC mandates disclosures far beyond anything credit unions provide so that owners of companies can be informed about the basis for transactions.

NCUA has completely ignored any obligation to protect the rights of member-owners compromising the fundamental governance mechanism in a cooperative.

Transparency Is a Requirement for Democracy

It’s no accident that the Post’s motto was aimed at governmental secrecy. The one exception I would raise to Frank’s thesis is that he wants NCUA to require greater disclosure.  The regulators are part of the problem.

NCUA repeatedly draws its own curtains of secrecy over its actions and even “facts.”  Listen closely to today’s hearing on the NCUSIF for reference to undisclosed econometric models and staff actions not subject to public or even board scrutiny.

When the NCUA chair was asked recently about a well-publicized problem in a credit union, he commented that he couldn’t talk about such situations and pivoted to the need for more authority over vendors.   NCUA itself fails to put on the public record the details for its decisions leaving both members and the industry in the dark about its effectiveness or even awareness of key events.

The Transparency Advantage

Frank closes with another reason, beyond the owners right for relevant information to make informed decisions about the credit union’s activities.

It is a moral issue that can put cooperatives on the ethical high ground or cast them as just another form of  self-serving enterprise:

“Not only would documenting all that (about bank purchases) be the right and ethical thing to do, it would make for an effective response to critics. . . that claim credit unions are just “profit-seeking enterprises masquerading as tax-exempt non-profits.”

Transparency is a leadership requirement.  It creates trust and confidence even when things go wrong.  Doing the right thing should not require a rule or reg.   It is a character trait.  Cooperatives and transparency are naturally intertwined, until pulled apart.  As Frank points out, that separation undermines the special possibilities and accomplishments cooperatives were empowered to do.