An Old Tale, Updated for Credit Unions

Down On The Farm…?

(by Jim Blaine)

George Orwell masterfully described the erosion of values and the rise of exploitation in his classic novel Animal Farm. The book written in 1945 is a satire of the decline in the Russian Revolution from idealism to the overlord State of Stalinism. To Orwell, what the Revolution had become in post-WWII Russia bore little resemblance to the high hopes of 1917.

In case you’ve forgotten the plot; in Animal Farm the slothful, tyrannical human proprietor of Manor Farm is overthrown by his much abused and neglected farm animals. The revolutionary animals quickly come to realize that when united in cooperative effort, they are quite capable of sensibly managing the farm and their own affairs. 


Each animal, by nature and design, has different capabilities and unique qualities. Separately they are weak. But, cooperatively, working together; the united effort becomes far greater than the sum of the individual parts. Each animal contributes in full measure, in its own special way, to the overall success of the enterprise. 

The cows and chickens provide milk and eggs for food. The sheep provide wool for cloth; the dogs provide protection; and the horses provide strength for plowing. The pigs, who seem to be the brightest, provide direction and management (surprise, surprise!).

Every civilized society, every social movement, every cooperative effort needs and creates a set of guiding principles – a social compact, a credo, a charter which explains shared beliefs and values. The animals of Animal Farm were no different. They carefully crafted rules for their new social order and painted them on the side of a barn for all to see.  

                  ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES:
 
 1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
 2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
 3. No animal shall wear clothes.
 4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
 5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
 6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
 7. All animals are equal.

Over time, several incidents occurred which seemed to be out of keeping with those original purposes. The pigs were found sleeping in the former owner’s bed; alcohol reappeared at social gatherings of the pigs; an animal who complained about the changing values was killed; and the pigs seemed to be working less and consuming more than their fair share. 

When the animals returned to the barn to review their original principles; they found, much to their surprise, that those principles somehow had evolved into something a bit different!

“EVOLVING” PRINCIPLES:
 
1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
7. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The pigs, however, were always there to explain away questions, concerns and objections. Bad became worse at Animal Farm! Eventually, when the animals returned to the barn, they found a whitewashed wall with just one remaining principle.

“CURRENT” PRINCIPLES?

“All members are equal, but some members are more equal than others.”

“Isn’t that what we originally revolted against?,” some quietly asked.

So, what’s the point? In the beginning, there were several essential ideas which formed the core values of the credit union movement: one member, one vote; cooperative; non-profit; equal service to each member; consumer advocacy; volunteer leadership; unstandard answers; shared concerns; us not me. 

 Have you checked the barn lately?    
 
When did we abandon the average man and woman – the working class; change our focus to the primacy of the bottom line; lower ourselves to worshipping before the false altar of market share; begin acting in the best interest of “the credit union” – not the members !?!; and start offering excuses rather than solutions?

Hey really, what happened…   

Who let the pigs in?



False Prophets and Chasing Idols

The email marketing headline read:  Is there a merger in your future?

Another suggested the opportunity to protect the CEO’s fate by adding  a “change of control” clause to the manager’s contract.

Many credit union leaders and most vendors are selling a vision of the future they want to help implement.   The focus is on the future, not the present circumstances.

The more apocalyptic the future predictions, the more urgent the message.   These prophets pretend to know the unknowable.   But the failure is not in their projections.   It is their misunderstanding of the present.

What Prophets Do

When leaders present their vision, they are making predictions about the future they hope to bring. In fact, prophets do exactly the opposite! They insist the future is highly contingent on the now.

From all the flotsam of events, beliefs and analysis, real prophets  have the ability to identify what really matters.  Focusing on this is essential for ongoing success.

That’s not predicting the future as much as it’s naming the way human reality works today and tomorrow.  The true prophet dares to tell what is essential in the face of marketing hype, rhetorical cliches and the latest innovation that will cause members to leave current institutions behind.

An Example

Decades ago I first met Rudy Hanley, the long time CEO of SchoolsFirst FCU in California.   He asked how I approached strategy.   As I outlined the model and summarized  growth options, he stated that the credit union’s primary goal was not growth.  It was ensuring the members’ trust.   No matter the circumstances or cost, the critical success factor was continuing to place member confidence at the center of every decision.

If member relationships were built on this foundation, he believed growth would naturally follow.

This is not every CEO’s priority.   Some believe size guarantees success, the bigger, the stronger and the more resilient.   Others put their trust in technology and introducing the most compelling solutions or latest crypto offering.  When winning in the open competition of the market seems to slow, others will chase the chimera of buying out or merging competitors.

All these approaches can bring short term success.  However member-owned cooperatives were established and succeeded as an alternative because of the unique consumer-member relationship.   Emulating the corporate strategies of banks and other commercial firms is following false idols.

There are a host of idolatries at the center of the cooperative system today.   Many aspire to the prestige and stature of banking competitors.   Making money becomes the number one priority albeit always clothed in the phrase of serving members.

Instead of seeking those who are often victims of current financial choices, credit unions aspire to serve everyone.  Speaking truth about why coops exist becomes prophetic because the “powers that be” that benefit from the system, cannot see this simple message.

The Transition of Leadership

The challenge of understanding who coops are and how credit unions are unique is especially front and center in leadership transitions.

One CEO who recently oversaw this change in his institution observed these dynamics:

It’s hard for today’s leaders to make their bones when they are up to bat.

Then lazy new leaders simply fall in line with the best practices of the day, currently community banking tactics 101.

New leaders will not see staying the course as the means to their hopeful ends.  They have been given the reins for change, not just continued success.  They are vested in their peer’s approval not their members, nor history’s standards.  

The new actors today are vested in their choices.  Logic will not be enough – it’s too nuanced to turn back the belief that change is the catalyst to bigger things.

These are a prophet’s words for the present.   Will anyone hear the message?  Or will there have to be a cost to chasing idols versus trusted service,  the core of Rudy Hanley’s leadership?

 

 

What Large Credit Unions Might Learn from Elephants

The largest, most powerful land animal is the elephant.  In many of their traditional habitats in Asia and Africa, their numbers are falling due to the loss of their traditional habitat and poachers.

The Elephant Whisperer is the story of a person who lived with elephants on a game preserve to try to preserve a “rogue” herd.

The author Lawrence Anthony devoted his life to animal conservation protecting the world’s endangered species. He was asked to accept a wild elephant herd on his Thula Thula game reserve in Zululand. His common sense told him to refuse, but he was the herd’s last chance of survival: they would be killed if he wouldn’t take them.

To win the herd’s trust, he had to convince the Matriarch  of the herd. The eldest female is the leader, until she relinquishes it. He slept in his Land Rover near them until they accepted him.

In the years that followed he became a part of their family. In creating a bond with the elephants, he came to realize that they had a great deal to teach him about life, loyalty, and freedom.

He learned elephants mourn their dead , and recall the time lapse of a year to the day of death to assemble round the remains.  When Lawrence Anthony died in 2012 , they gathered  to mourn him.

The Instincts of the Herd

Elephants care for newborns together.  When one is unable to stand up to nurse, they surround to help lift her up to the mother. Sometimes realizing the infant needed more nutrition, they would seek out Lawrence and his team.

The elephants thrive very much together, protecting and playing with each other but ferocious if threatened.  They will accept help from humans they trust.

An iconic picture of this group effort is when the herd will lie down to sleep for several hours each day.   As shown below the matriarch is at the top, the smaller, younger elephants protected by the older ones.   Most importantly, the picture shows how each member stays touched by another as they sleep.

 

Is there a lesson for cooperatives from this natural behavior of the world’s largest land animals?

When The Bullet Hits The Bone…

Two credit union press releases this week reminded me of the 2012 post below by Jim Blaine.

The first was the announcement that five Minnesota credit unions had loaned $31 million to Opal Holdings, a New York real estate developer and investment firm, to purchase a 17 story office tower in Bloomington, MN.  “The financing included two senior secured notes on equal footing issued in June: One for $22.1 million at 5.1% for 36 years and the other for $8.1 million at 5.32% for 40 years.”

The second from Summit Credit Union stating it had completed the purchase of the $837 million Commerce State Bank  “in the largest credit union acquisition of a bank in the state’s history.”

“Twilight Zone”  (by Jim Blaine)

Nobody said it better than Golden Earring.  No, this is not the golden earring you fearfully imagine sprouting some day from your teenager’s nose or navel.  It’s the late ‘70s rock group and the song is “Twilight Zone”.  The question:  “Steppin’ out into the twilight zone.  Entering the Madhouse, fears that have grown.  What will become of the moon, and stars?  Where am I to go, now that I’ve gone too far?”…  The answer:  “You will come to know, when the bullet hits the bone!  Yes, you will come to know, when the bullet hits the bone!”

The Heartland….

The Amana Colonies, 26,000 acres of picturesque Iowa farmland, sheltering seven immaculate villages, are up Highway 151 about 100 miles east of Des Moines.  This is the Midwest, the Heartland.

The place where the Deere and the antelope play.  A warp in time through which, you may, perhaps, be able to catch a glimpse of the future – the future of the credit union movement.

The Amanas were settled in 1855 by the Society of True Inspirationists.  The sect was formed in Germany; adopted a communal structure; and had unique, idealistic, and firmly held beliefs – sound vaguely familiar?  The communities were self-sufficient and prospered richly.  

All things were shared.  Products, such as woolens, handmade furniture, meats and wines, were sold to the outside world.  A sterling reputation was built upon high standards of craftsmanship and a close attention to detail.  The “Amana” name – remember that refrigerator? – became synonymous with quality and value – sound vaguely familiar?

“Why don’t you download this app…”

The Amanas appeared to be the true Utopia, the new Eden.  But trouble, eventually, always comes to Eden.  At first, the Inspirationists called it “The Reorganization”, then “The Change”, and finally, “The Great Change”.  It started as a murmur, became a grumble, heightened to an argument, and ended in 1932 as a split.  

Eighty years of success forced onto the scaffold of change by a diminished intensity of beliefs, a cooling of religious fervor, a forgetfulness of original purpose and vision – sound vaguely familiar?

Their world, however, did not come to an end in 1932.  The Amana Colonies continued on.  The communal structure was abandoned; the religious and the secular were separated.  Homes and personal property were divided; stock was issued in the businesses and agricultural interests.

The Amana Society Corporation now controls and manages the businesses.  The Amana Church Society now deals with spiritual matters.  Today, the Amanas are on the National Registry of Historic Places and the Amana Heritage Society strives diligently to preserve the cultural heritage of the community and its descendants.  Today, the Amanas are still many things, but mostly the Amanas are a novelty, an oddity, a quaint museum of past hopes and ideas.  

Why did this happen?  The guidebook says:  The Amanas were… “a goal:  visioned through faith; created and established by faith; named for a faith and dedicated to a faith”.  And, “the first generation had an idea and lived for the idea.  The second generation perpetuated the idea for the sake of their fathers, but their hearts were not in it.  The third generation openly rebelled against the task of mere perpetuation of institutions founded by their grandfathers.  It is always the same with people.” – sound vaguely familiar?Which credit union generation is this?  Are you still living for “the idea”?  Is your heart… still in it?

“… destination unknown.” 

“Steppin’ out into the twilight zone.  Falling down a spiral, destination unknown.  What will become of the moon and the stars.  Where am I to go, now that I’ve gone too far? 

…You will come to know, when the bullet hits the bone.  Yes, you will come to know when the bullet hits the bone.”

Credit Unions and Liquidity Management

Managing liquidity will be an ongoing priority during the interest rate transformation now being led by the Federal Reserve.

Today  I want to show how credit unions have prepared.

Relying on a Cooperative System

Credit unions managing  74% of assets ($1.57 trillion) use the FHLB system.   To borrow from the banks, credit unions must invest in a bank’s capital with borrowings a multiple of their contribution.

As cooperatives, the banks are owned by their members, pay a dividend on the capital and offer multiple borrowing, hedging and funding options.

These 1,271 credit unions report a total of advised lines of  credit of  $288.1  billion at June 30, 2022.

The credit union funded CLF at June 30 reports total membership 349 regular members plus 10 corporate agents which have funded the CLF capital requirements for their members with less than $250 million in assets.

The total CLF capital contributions represent approximately 26.2% of all credit union shares as of June 30.

In addition the CLF has total borrowing authority of $29.7 billion but has no advised lines of credit with credit unions.  This lending capacity, if fully utilized would equal just 10.3% of the total advised lines credit unions report from the FHLB system.

Two Observations

Credit  unions rely on the cooperatively designed, privately managed FHLB with boards elected by the owners, as their primary source of external liquidity.

The CLF, specifically designed for credit unions, has not evolved to respond to credit union needs.   The CLF managed by NCUA has no credit union representation or programs to encourage credit union involvement.

There have been no loans from the CLF to credit unions since 2010.   At that time the two most significant loans were initiated by NCUA as part of their corporate conservatorships of US Central and WesCorp.  These two borrowings were for $ 5 billion dollars each, guaranteed by the NCUSIF.

In the upcoming period of enhanced liquidity management, credit unions are turning to the organizations they own and can rely on.

 

 

Cooperative Democracy: an Oxymoron?

Mark Twain Was Right: If Voting Mattered, They Wouldn’t Let Us Do It. There’s only one way to make your voice heard and it isn’t by protesting.

*************************

James Clear: “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets. If you want better results, focus on your systems.”

******************************

When the coop’s democratic owner advantage is not used, it goes away. Co-ops become indistinguishable from banks. Members are just another name for customers. And leadership progressively presumes its judgments and choices are the primary basis for all decisions–even those ending the charter’s independent existence.

When democratic practices are habitually circumvented, they are difficult to restore. Without regular succession processes, the ability to find new leaders, or even generate interest in leadership is squelched. And at any moment, the sirens of self-interest can appear, canceling the credit union’s future for all members.

Democracy matters until it doesn’t. The good news is that this is a fundamental flaw that every credit union has in its own power to fix. (CUSO Magazine)

************************

From Mike Mercer:

The extent to which cooperation is the norm depends on the extent to which the behavior is nurtured by the institutions of a society.’  In a time when power is concentrated in the hands of individuals with lots of capital or those with the keys to redistribution of wealth, it is hard to imagine that decentralized cooperation will organically be embraced from within the citadels of existing power. Rather, the cluttered path to a more civil economy will have to be cleared by those who lead democratically structured organizations that have already been formed to foster cooperative behavior.

 Karl Hoyle and His Powerful Cooperative Talent

Last week Karl Hoyle (1943-2021), a  credit union advocate, was interred in Arlington Cemetery.

There are 450,000 other graves, an honor earned, not bought.

The ceremony starts with a brief service in the Old Post Chapel.  The Honor Guard brings in the urn. The Chaplain reads the 23rd Psalm; the attendees say the Lord’s Prayer.  The organ plays America the Beautiful and On the Wings of Eagles.

Following the service the congregation goes with the honor guard to the gravesite.  The American flag is meticulously folded in a triangle.

There is the seven gun salute, the bugle playing taps and the sacred moment when the flag is presented to Kathy Hoyle, Karl’s wife, by an officer on bended knee.

Afterwards, roses are placed on the grave next to the urn where the only identifier on the wooden box is Karl’s military medals.

The Air Medal and Purple Heart

I learned during the reception that Karl had been awarded the Air Medal.  This  Medal recognizes military and civilian personnel for single acts of heroism while participating in aerial flight in actual combat.  It is the equivalent of the bronze star.

Karl was deployed to Vietnam as part of the 9th Infantry Division.   At the support base, a call came for helicopters to  medivac the wounded from a platoon still in the midst of battle.    He volunteered, got on the chopper and went straight into the firefight to evacuate his fellow soldiers.

As his military colleague stated: “Karl was the guy you wanted on your team.”

His life subsequently expanded to be much more than that moment of choice marked by courage and duty.

Joining the Cooperative Team

Jim Barr and Karl were the top lobbyists in CUNA’s Washington Office when Ed Callahan, Bucky Sebastian and I arrived at NCUA at the end of 1981.  Both had worked together in the late 70’s at the newly organized NAFCU.

Karl would sometimes remark that his profession’s reputation was not always the highest.  His favorite line was, “If you run into my mother, tell her I am just the piano player in a whorehouse.”

However when mentoring many others on the Hill, he counseled that :  “To be a professional with integrity, know that everything you say will be remembered.”

Three Personal Contacts

Of the many occasions Karl and I spoke, three stand out.

  1. Karl learned that I had moved to Bethesda, MD in 1982 to be near NIH because my wife was being treated for breast cancer. We hoped to get accepted in one of their special cancer studies, but had no idea how to begin. Karl offered to call and see what might be possible.  Shortly he informed us that because Mary Ann had already been on several chemo therapies, she was not eligible for their new protocols.  The studies were limited to patients with no previous treatments.
  2. In 1984 NCUA and the entire credit union system endeavored to find a Congressional bill in which to insert wording to redesign the NCUSIF in the Federal Credit Union Act. Democrat Bill Bradley was a key player on the Senate Banking Committee.  Karl was aware that Bill and I had played basketball together.

He brought me up to the Hill and sent a messenger into a banking hearing saying Chip Filson wanted to talk to the Senator.  Bill came out, motioned me into an elevator with him.  Lobbying Congress was not something I did for a living.  I don’t remember what was said, although I suspect Karl gave me the points to make.

Later that year Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, with bipartisan support, creating the NCUSIF’s new cooperative financial structure based on credit union’s 1% deposit perpetual underwriting.

  1. In May 1985, Ed, Bucky and I left NCUA to set up Callahan & Associates with a first office in the Triangle Towers building in Bethesda. Initial capital, $1,000. The location allowed me to be close to home, since I was a single parent with two teenage girls.

Shortly after, Karl called and asked if we needed any furniture.  CUNA was moving offices and had several old desks and chairs which we could have if we moved them ourselves.   We did.

He also asked if we needed any staff.  All three of us had worked in state or federal government for the past decade and were used to having support.  We said yes.   He said his wife Kathy, a superb office manager, was looking for a new opportunity.   She became Callahan’s first hire.

Karl’s Essential Cooperative Skill-Connecting

Karl’s special talent was facilitating the power that results from connecting people for common purpose.  Connections are what tie us together in community or when confronting personal circumstances.

Bucky said Karl’s success  was the result of his building relationships with  the staff in Congressional offices.

A former hill staffer at the reception knew Karl.  Her husband had been killed in the Air Florida crash in the winter of 1982 when the Potomac had frozen over.  She said Karl’s way of helping was: “Don’t call. Just show up.”

Tawana James, Karl’s deputy when he was Executive Director at NCUA, said “he cared about people.”

Credit unions’ competitive advantage is at its strongest when leaders collaborate.  Karl’s talent for connection came naturally, it was not an artifice.

Staying Connected

Two examples of his talent are in the pictures below.  One was a note to Bucky when Karl was in Madison at CUNA’s headquarters.  The second, a photo with the coach of the credit union team at the time, on which Karl was such a vital player.

Kathy like Karl has filled many roles  within the credit union system.  This year she will retire after working  more than a decade at InFirst Federal Credit Union.

Kathy and Karl: A relationship  bound by common purpose and service.

Outside The Box Thinking…

( a Jim Blaine classic post)

In the beginning ( no I was not there!); credit unions were created as cooperatives, which were to be owned and controlled by the members and managed in their best interests.

One member / one vote; a democratically elected Board; a common goal, a common purpose – the common good !

“We’re all in this together…”

But today, some Boards and CEOs have become “more creative” in how they view their relationship with and their responsibilities to those member-owners.

Kind of an “outside the box” sorta view….
See the problem? 
The members have become “outsiders”…. 
and therein lies our greatest challenge for the future!
A complete
box set!


Don’t box yourself in, 
don’t box your members out!

The NCUSIF Look Back: Its Vulnerabilities after 40 Years

The radical, cooperative redesign of the NCUSIF was approved by the NCUA board in October 1984.

In this board meeting video excerpt, Chairman Callahan thanked all who had worked to put this new “safety net” in place.  He called it a “great victory that is truly unique and sets the credit union system apart from all other financial institutions.”

Board member PA Mack stated his support of the new plan:  “I think this is an outstanding product as a partnership among government and credit unions. “

Chairman Callahan closed with these words about what it would take for this redesign to succeed:  “The real challenge now goes to the people at NCUA. The system can work beautifully for credit unions in the future. . . the real secret now is the operations.” 

This look back suggests the wisdom of Ed’s insight.  For the unique structure is only as effective as the people responsible for its implementation.

Immediate Success Brings Temptations

In NCUA’s  1985 NCUSIF’s Annual Report, the board  led by Chairman Roger Jepsen reported that in the first year the restructuring had “returned over $275 million in tangible benefits” to credit unions.  (Page 5)

The major initial concern was whether the agency’s multiple supervision efforts to resolve problem situations could reduce the losses charged to the fund.    The 1985 Report reported five-year trends that documented losses for all liquidations at only 1.5 basis points of all credit union insured savings.  Net losses in closed credit unions were $3.1 million, the lowest in the previous five years. The fund’s $29 million dividend at yearend was a payout ratio of 46% of  net income.  The Fund still maintained its 1.3% equity ratio.

But the fund’s fourfold increase in size, revenue, earnings and financial success also resulted in changing the long-standing practice of how the agency’s operating costs were allocated to the NCUSIF. From 1981 through 1985,  this allocation had ranged from a low of 30.5% to 34%.  This ratio aligned with the percentage of state charted credit unions insured by the NCUSIF.

At yearend 1986, state charters were just 33.3% of all NCUSIF insured institutions.   However the NCUA board increased the indirect expense to 50%.   As stated in that year’s Annual Report “The cost of these services which totaled $16,821,936 and $8,069,244 for the years ended September 30, 1986 and 1985, respectively, are reflected as a reduction of the corresponding (operating) expenses in the accompanying financial statements.”

The NCUA’s operating expenses charged to FCU’s “declined” from $21.5 million in 1985 to $17 million in 1986. This 100% increase in the NCUSIF’s expenses reduced the operating fee paid by federal charters. There was no change in the proportion of state chartered credit unions covered by the NCUSIF. This was an easier political option than raising the fee charged FCU’s.

This 50% increase in the expense allocation highlighted the most frequent concern expressed by credit unions about the new plan.  Here are some questions asked at a Q & A open meeting about the plan as reported in NCUA’s 1984 Annual Report:

Questioner:

What if the fund doesn’t operate on the interest earned?  If you don’t pay a dividend?  What happens if the agency is poorly run?  (pages 18, 19)

The concern was specific.  If the agency was given more money, wouldn’t it just be tempted to spend more?   Could the agency change the guardrails at its sole discretion?

This 50% increase in the Overhead Transfer Rate (OTR) was just the beginning of efforts to use the increased resources, not for insurance costs, but to underwrite the ever expanding agency budget.

“Building Out” The Agency

Soon after the 1986 OTR adjustment, the NCUSIF became the funding source for the NCUA’s building aspirations.  In 1988 the Operating Fund “entered into a $2,161,000 thirty-year unsecured note with the NCUSIF for the purchase of a building. . .In 1992, the Fund entered into a commitment to borrow up to $41,975,000 in a thirty-year secured term with the NCUSIF.  The monies were drawn as needed to fund the costs of constructing a building in 1993.”  (NCUA 2003 Annual Report pg 52.)

The variable rate on both notes was equal to the NCUSIF’s prior month yield on investments.  The interest was paid by the Operating Fund, 50% of whose expenses were then charged back to the NCUSIF.  The NCUSIF loaned the money and then paid half the interest on the loan!

It should be noted that during this construction and move to a new building in Alexandria , VA financed by the $42 million loan, the NCUSIF still paid a dividend  every year from 1995 through 2000, as the fund’s yearend equity ratio was above the 1.3% cap.

A Double Whammy in 2001

The Fund’s financial management which had produced six consecutive annual dividends was altered in two significant steps in 2001  by the NCUA Board.

The first was to increase the percentage of the fund’s OTR from 50% to 66.6%.   This resulted in a 37.3% growth NCUSIF’s operating expense while the operating fund reported a 31% decline in expenses in just the first year of this change.

The operating assessment for FCU’s fell by 20.4%.  The NCUA board was able to lower this fee on all FCU’s by shifting the expenses internally to the NCUSIF funded by all credit unions.

Each year since 2001, NCUA has calculated a different OTR’s based on “a study of staff time spent on insurance-related duties versus supervision-related duties.”   This ever fluctuating OTR peaked at 73.1% in 2016 under Chairman Matz.

During the past two decades of variable OTR, the percentage of state chartered credit unions in the NCUIF has remained more or less constant.    At June 30,2022 the 1,811 stare charters were only 37.3% of all FISCU’s.

The second administrative action was more consequential, because it modified how the normal operating level (NOL) was calculated and thus when the dividend is required. In a footnote 5 to the NCUSIF’s 2001 audited financials the following change was announced:

The NCUA board has determined that the normal operation level is 1.30 %  at  December 31, 2001 and 2000.   The calculated equity ratio at December 31 was 1.25%. The equity ratio at December 2000 was 1.33% which considered an estimated $31.9 million in deposit adjustments billed to insured credit unions in 2001 based upon total insured shares as of December 31, 2000.  Subsequently, such deposit adjustments were excluded and the calculated equity ratio at December 31,2000 was revised to 1.3%.

The Fund reversed its year earlier NOL determination. But even with this retroactive adjustment to the December 2000 equity ratio, the footnote continued:  Dividends of $99,490,000 which were associated with insured shares as of December 31, 2000 were declared and paid in 2001. 

Since the 1% deposit redesign in 1985, this annual adjustment has always been collected  in the following year.   And until this 2001 modification, the retained earnings/equity ratio was based on yearend insured savings.  A dividend was paid if retained earnings exceeded the .3% cap.

By not counting the 1% true up until the amount was billed results in an understatement of the actual NOL. It eliminated a dividend in years when the ratio would have exceeded the .3% cap under the prior practice, starting in 2001.

The Ultimate Guardrail Change

Since 1985, the NCUSIF normal operating level (NOL) had always been set at 1.3%.  In many years the cap was not reached, but the resulting ratio was considered adequate even if under the cap.  During and after the Great recession, the Board did not change the 1.3% cap even though they had been authorized to do so in the 1998 CUMAA.

Then in 2017 the board voted to merge the surplus from the TCCUSF into the NCUSIF.  But this surplus would have raised he NOL to greater than 1.5%.  To retain this amount above the traditional 1.3% cap, the board took two actions.  It raised the cap to 1.39%, the first time this change had ever happened.

The agency also immediately expensed and added to loss reserves $750 million from the TCCUSF surplus to pay for potential losses in natural person credit unions.   This action directly contradicted the congressional language establishing the TCCUSF that the fund “was not to be used for natural person credit union losses.”  But it did reduce the NOL to 1.39% even after setting aside a dividend for credit unions from a portion of the surplus.

This was the first time that the cap had been raised above the longstanding 1.3 level.  No verifiable details were provided about how this new level was determined except for summary data unsupported with actual calculations.

NCUSIF Success Raises Temptations

Credit unions’ concerns about supporting a perpetual 1% underwriting were well founded.  Their worry was “If we send more money to the NCUA, won’t they just be tempted to spend it because that is what government does.“

Subsequent NCUA boards have converted the “partnership” understandings referred to by Board member PA Mack into a perverse interpretation:  that to “protect the fund” the agency has to spend more and more on its operations to accomplish that objective.

From 2008 through 2021, the NCUSIF spent $2.2 billion on operating expenses and only $1.88 billion on actual cash losses.

NCUA has converted the fund into the agency’s cash cow. It has transferred much of its annual budget increases to the NCUSIF.   For example in 2012 the operating fund expense was $90.6  million; six years later in 2017 the expenses were still only  $90.3 million   All of the annual increases in the agency’s operating budget and more, in this six years, were paid by the insurance fund.

Federal credit unions became “free riders” as the operating fee paid an increasingly smaller share of the agency’s expenses.

The NCUA Board’s Responsibility: A Legacy Being Squandered

While staff proposes, the board disposes of their recommendations.  NCUA and its budget are literally exempt from any outside approval.  The agency is independent.  This absence of oversight raises responsibility of political appointees.

The annual OTR transfer have lost any connection to insured risk.  Instead they remind one of a person declaring their waistline to be 32″; but then, when you gain weight, redefining 32″ as whatever your waistline happens to be.  Insurance activity is whatever we want it to be.

The shortcomings have been bipartisan.   Republicans and democratic appointees have repeatedly affirmed transparency and actions to protect the fund.  But in practice the agency has declined to release the accounting options provided by its own outside CPA firm Cotton, the details in setting its annual NOL limit above 1.3, or the investment options and risk analysis used in managing the fund’s portfolio.

Every NCUA board member inherits a unique cooperative legacy in the NCUSIF that requires both knowledge and diligence if the fund is to be sustained.  This responsibility takes work and continual vigilance.

When the critical guardrails of the fund are modified one by one, the initial signposts of success are forgotten, and critical facts routinely omitted, then the prospect of a sound NCUSIF future is undermined.

The most important success factor in the Fund’s special public-private partnership is the ability to ask hard questions.  When this is not possible for board members to do and to followup, then it is up to credit unions or Congress.

A Lookback: The NCUSIF Four Decades after Redesign (1985-2022)

Knowing the past is essential to understanding the present and charting the future. This is true for individuals, institutions and society.

History provides us with a sense of identity. People, social movements  and institutions require a sense of their collective past that contributes to  what we are today.

This knowledge should include facts about our prior behavior, thinking and judgement.  Such information is critical in shaping our present and future.

The NCUSIF’s Transition Story

 

The NCUSIF legislation was passed by Congress in October 1970 authorizing  a premium based financial model imitating the FDIC’s and FSLIC’s  approach begun four decades earlier. This multi-decade head start was how those funds achieved their 1% required statutory minimum fund balance. This reserve growth occurred  during the post-war years of steady economic growth with only modest cycles of recession.

Then the economic disruption with double digit inflation and unemployment of the late 70’s and 80’s led to the complete deregulation of the financial system established during the depression.

Ten years after insuring its first credit unions, the NCUSIF’s financial position at fiscal yearend September 30, 1981, was:

Total Fund Assets:   $227 million

Total Fund Equity:    $175 million

Insured CU assets:    $57 Billion

Total Insured CU’s:    17,000

Fund equity/Insured shares:   .30%

CUNA president Jim William told NCUA Chairman Ed Callahan before his GAC speech in 1982, the dominant concern of credit unions was survival.

Because the fund equity ratio was so far short of its 1% legally mandated goal,  NCUA  implemented the only available option  to increase the ratio.   Double premiums were assessed in 1983 and 1984 totaling 16 basis points of insured savings for every insured credit union.

However, the ratio continued to decline primarily due to increased losses from the country’s macro-economic challenges. These trends and the prospect of double premiums caused  credit unions to ask if there were a better way.

The history of the analysis of the fund’s first dozen years leading up to these changes is in this seven minute video from the NCUA Video Network.

In April 1984, NCUA delivered a congressionally mandated report on the history  and current state of the NCUSIF.  It included the development of private, cooperative share insurance options and league stabilization funds.  It presented four recommendations to restructure the NCUSIF from a premium revenue model, to a cooperative, self-help, self-funding one.

Today’s NCUSIF after 40 Years

The four decades of NCUSIF performance since 1985 have proven the wisdom of the redesign and generated enormous financial savings for credit unions versus annual premiums.

Today the NCUSIF is $21.2 billion in total equity giving a fund insured share ratio of approximately 1.29%.   This size represents a 12.7% CAGR since 1981 when the fund’s equity was  just $175 million.

The critical success factor  of the 1% cooperative funding model is that it tracks the growth of total risk with earning assets, whatever the external economic environment.

This was and is not the fate of the premium based funds. The FSLIC failed and was merged into the FDIC in 1994.  The FDIC has assessed an annual premium(s) on total assets every year since the 1980’s.

The FDIC’s ratio of fund equity to insured shares at March 31, 2022 was 1.23%, down from its peak of 1.41% in December 2019.   On a number of occasions, the FDIC fund has reported negative equity during financial crisis.

NCUSIF Twice the Coverage Size of FDIC

It should also be noted that FDIC insured savings are only $10 trillion (41%) of the $24.1 trillion total assets in  FDIC insured institutions at the end of the March 2022.  The FDIC  is only .51% of all banking assets.

For credit unions insured shares are 78% of total assets.  Today, the NCUSIF’s total assets are  1% of all credit union assets, a ratio two times the size  of the FDIC’s.

Five Decades of Reliable, Sound Coverage

Throughout the redesigned NCUSIF’s history, a premium has been assessed to augment the fund four times: 1991 and 1992; and 2009 and 2010.   In both situations the premiums were levied based on reserve losses expensed but then subsequently reversed in later years.

In 1985, the fund’s first full year of the redesign, NCUA reported “for the first time ever, the NCUSIF paid a dividend.”   The NCUSIF Annual Report further stated that “credit unions were returned $275 million in tangible benefits.” (page 5).  This from a fund that just four years earlier reported $175 million in total equity.

The fund continued to pay dividends including six consecutive years from 1995 through 2000, and again in 2008 when the equity ratio was above 1.3%.

These results were achieved because of a collaborative partnership between NCUA and credit unions.  The changes were based on an analysis of prior events.  Options were evaluated and based on open dialogue at every stage.  Ultimately this consensus for change was critical in obtaining congressional support for this unique cooperative solution.

The redesign included commitments by credit unions to guarantee the fund’s solvency no matter the circumstances. But it also mandated guardrails on agency options and required transparency in reporting and managing the fund’s assets.

The NCUSIF four decades of performance has also provided a valuable record for reviewing credit union loss experience in multiple economic circumstances and events.   It provides an audited account of actual losses during the many years when there are none and credit unions received a dividend.

But it also documents the actual cash losses in the four or five short recessions or economic upheavals such as the aftermath from the 9/11 attacks, the Great Recession and the most recent COVID economic shutdown.

The NCUSIF’s record is sound.  It is proven. The facts are known.   So what could possibly go wrong?

Tomorrow I will review the temptations awakened by the NCUSIF’s successful track record.