Category: Mergers

Posted on

Situational Awareness, Leadership and Looking Ahead

As leaders celebrate the known wins in the books for 2021, there is also the need to anticipate what lies ahead in the New Year.  Will it be better or worse?  More of the same, or changes planned?

One approach to this forward-looking exercise is situational awareness, sometimes abbreviated SA.

The concept was developed primarily by the military.  It is a skill to improve one’s ability to identify potential threats, be more ‘present’ and aware of your surroundings in combat.

The term has also been used to analyze danger in various worker environments where the potential for accidental injury is great.   Some even apply the concept to personal safety where one might be at risk such as traveling in an unfamiliar neighborhood at night.

Situational Awareness in Sports

A frequent reference to this ability to react in a situation is sports competition.

Success does not always go to the strongest or fastest athlete, but to those that have a superior “feel for the game.”

My son-in-law played offense tackle for Stanford when the team was coached by Bill Walsh, a former NFL coach,  considered a master offensive tactician.

Walsh would always script his team’s first offensive drive with 6-8 set plays so that he could see how the defense reacted.  Based on what he learned would determine how he then approached the overall game plan previously drawn up.

In basketball one of the elite players at every level was Bill Bradley who played at Princeton, for the New York Knicks as well as being the only collegiate player selected for the 1964 US Olympic team in Tokyo.

A description of his extraordinary sense for the ever-changing dynamics of the game is described in A Sense of Where You  Are, the story of his senior year at Princeton and his preternatural feel for the game.

In choosing the title, the author quotes Bradley:

“When you have played basketball for a while, you don’t need to look at the basket when you are in close like this,” he said, throwing it over his shoulder again and right through the hoop. “You develop a sense of where you are.”

At one point the author takes Bradley to a Princeton ophthalmologist to see if his skill is due to an expanded range of peripheral vision versus a normal person’s.  The tests show he has both greater horizontal and vertical  range.   But that does not explain the instinctive way he applied his talent.  That analysis takes the rest of the book!

For many their first experience of situational analysis is when a teacher claims to have “eyes in the back of her head” so you had better be careful what you do.

Situational Analysis Applied in Business

The Wharton Business school offers an online course which applies the theory and practice of situational analysis to business and political leadership.  The initial lecture and course description is here.

The course extends the concept  beyond its military and industrial origins to understand what happens in organizations. How do critical elements in the environment  change over time?

Many  neglect this analysis because they’re so focused on a particular plan or task that they take for granted essential factors in projecting the near future.

It’s a mindset of not paying attention to one’s surroundings.   Or as the British writer George Orwell observed: “People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes.

Increasing Awareness

Situational awareness identifies the elements in the environment that are important, changing and create greater uncertainty about the near future.  No matter one’s experience in a  role,  understanding the total environment in which the organization functions is critical for effective leadership.

This analysis is front and center in New Year predictions. Or necessary anytime a future course is being planned.

The Wharton program suggests using a four-quadrant model to identify situations that are important and unimportant, and familiar to unfamiliar.

The critical events are those that are important and unfamiliar, the upper right quadrant below.  The goal is to be more aware of these challenges and take care to understand variable risks, uncertainty, what is moving around, and how to respond.

What to Place in the Critical Quadrant?

My list of evolving situations that the credit union system may need to consider differently from their 2021 experiences includes:

  • Increase in inflation and the inevitable rise in market rates.
  • The growing divide between well-to-do members and those living only on each paycheck’s income.
  • The system’s absence of new entrants/entrepreneurs: the ratio of charter cancellations to new charters, is at 50 or 100:1 depending on the year selected.
  • Effective investment of surplus capital-buying banks or mergers versus organic growth to benefit the members.
  • Finding and developing the best employees when 40% of the work force wants to change jobs.
  • Overcoming the  gap between regulatory actions and credit union priorities  to design a mutual  approach to cooperatives’ future.

How any team completes this exercise depends on their role in an organization.  For those at the top, this analysis is most critical.

Bureaucracies by design are bound by organizational processes.  When complacency and habit replace vigilance, that is how an organization gets into trouble.   Situational awareness is critical to counterbalance this self-approving tendency.

Tomorrow I will provide an example of one credit union’s pivot in response to some of the factors above.    I will also share a classic example of robotic performance damaging a critical cooperative institution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Two Cooperative Applications of Clayton Christensen’s Final Message

I met business theorist Clayton Christensen once.  He had just finished a panel on the potential for disruptive innovation in higher education-including his courses at the Harvard Business School.

Thinking that his new online offering on disruptive concepts might be useful for credit union strategy, I asked if we might talk with him about this innovative effort.  He gave me his card, turned it over to show his administrative assistant’s name, and asked we contact her.

We did.  That is how Callahans became a partner in distributing and applying his ideas of disruptive analysis  with credit unions.

His Final Work

Professor Christensen’s last work was How Will You Measure Your Life? In this brief excerpt he begins with a case– the example of Blockbuster’s demise after Netflix’s replaced the DVD rental model with online streaming.  By 2011, Netflix had almost 24 million customers while Blockbuster had declared bankruptcy the prior year before.

His explanation of how this happened:

Blockbuster followed a principle that is taught in every fundamental course in finance and economics: When evaluating alternative investments, ignore sunk and fixed costs (costs that have already been incurred), and instead base decisions on the marginal costs and marginal revenues (the new costs and revenues) that each alternative entails.

But it’s a dangerous way of thinking. This doctrine biases companies to leverage what they have put in place to succeed in the past, instead of guiding them to create the capabilities they’ll need in the future. 

In this article he extends the errors of marginal-cost logic to a person’s choosing right and wrong. He tells the story of deciding not to play in the British Universities National Championship basketball game for Oxford where he was studying on a Rhodes Scholarship.  He learned that the final game would be played on a Sunday, the Sabbath for his church.   He was the starting center.  His teammates challenged him: “You’ve got to play. Can’t you break the rule, just this one time?”

He did not play.  He compares the temptation he felt to “adjust” his principles just this once, as similar to the logical error in marginal cost thinking.

If you give in to “just this once,” based on a marginal-cost analysis, you’ll regret where you end up. That’s the lesson I learned: It’s easier to hold to your principles 100% of the time than it is to hold to them 98% of the time. The boundary — your personal moral line — is powerful, because you don’t cross it; if you have justified doing it once, there’s nothing to stop you doing it again.

The Personal Decision Underlying Every Merger of a Sound Credit Union

Sometime in the first decade of this century a credit union manager described the private merger deal making going on in his state.  In the example cited, he said the “retiring CEO” had requested a payment of six times the annal salary to recommend his credit union as the merger partner.   The CEO turned down the “opportunity.”

Tomorrow I will address Christensen’s business critique of marginal cost analysis in bank purchases and mergers.   Today I  will apply his logic to the underlying principles that guide our thinking when making any consequential decision.

He describes his importance of his decision at Oxford not to play on the Sabbath:

Resisting the temptation of “in this one extenuating circumstance, just this once, it’s okay” has proved to be one of the most important decisions of my life. Why? Because life is just one unending stream of extenuating circumstances.

The Moral Challenge in Mergers

Since NCUA’s 2017 rule requiring disclosures of additional compensation for senior executives when merging with another credit union, the payouts, once private are now public.

The amounts range from bonuses and Golden Parachutes as high as $1.5 million plus continued employment in specific cases.  One CEO set himself up with payments of $35 million to a non-profit he incorporated just  60 days prior to the merger announcement.

CEO’s defend this additional bounty with various rationales.  These vary from “this is the usual and customary practice” to legal obligations for payments under employment contracts when a charter is ended.

Some situations appear to be nothing more than the CEO selling the credit union and taking a portion of the reserves as a bonus for so doing.

Rarely are any specific plans or concrete examples of member benefits presented in the members’ merger notice.  Rather it is the deal makers who  reap immediate, specific windfalls.

The CEO’s and senior management who have negotiated these benefits have done so publicly.   Their personal choices are clear.

However every “seller” requires a willing buyer.

The issue Christensen raises is about the other CEO’s, those on the accepting end of  these conditional deals.  How do their employees and boards view these significant “bonuses”?   Will their CEO be tempted to follow the same path?   What member interest is being served?  Are these situations promoting their credit union’s values?   How do these mergers  support the purpose of their member-owned credit union?

What will be the character of a movement built upon internal consolidation of long serving, strong performing firms versus growth from  winning via market competition?

I have heard the reasoning that these are one-off opportunities.  If we had not agreed the CEO would have just gone to another credit union and we would have missed our chance for this free and easy growth.  Moreover since we are larger now, the members will be getting a better deal, etc.

Christensen’s explained his choice of not playing on the Sabbath:

It’s easier to hold to your principles 100% of the time than it is to hold to them 98% of the time. The boundary — your personal moral line — is powerful, because you don’t cross it; if you have justified doing it once, there’s nothing to stop you doing it again.

The Choice

One of the cooperative values is autonomy, the ability to manage an independent institution free to make its own business decisions. For some, this will be  to “roll up” smaller institutions, take  their free member capital and pursue an open-ended effort at acquisitions.

For others, the decision will be to turn down overtures, focus on innovative growth, and support the diversity and variety of institutions flying the credit union flag.

Christensen’s bottom line: Decide what you stand for. And then stand for it all the time.

 

 

 

Posted on

Two Reasons Mergers Fail to Advance the Cooperative System

Mergers of sound and long-serving credit unions have two fatal flaws:

  1. They do nothing to expand the credit union system or its market share. Basic merger math is 1 + 1 = 1. No new members are added, nor loans.  Employees leave and long term member relationships are disrupted.
  2. Closing an independent operation with its own leadership and governance, reduces the industry’s human capital and innovation potential.                                                                                                                                        An analogy: If I have an apple and you have an apple and we exchange them, we both still have one apple. However, if I have an idea and you also have an idea and we exchange them, we both have two ideas.

Credit union leaders who serve in their positions for years and then seek a merger, inherited a vital legacy from their predecessors,  but have stolen it from their children.

Posted on

Missing Voices

 

          NCUA’s New Logo

“I wish I had kept the phone numbers and emails of CEOs that are now gone from view.  Ex-CEOs that could tell me what they had wished they had done when they faced downward curves on the way to the end.

I worry that lessons lost and archived outside our industry are what is needed now.

What did we miss when we justified the NCUA or regulators’ actions to end an organization?  What did we miss when no owners really dug into a vote to end a charter?  What did we miss when the life-cycles of leaders and volunteers were more important than CUs needing young blood?

What did we miss when we followed models based on scale that left local communities and individuals on the sidelines?  What did we miss that are the keys to turning a losing streak back towards winning?

Some might say we missed nothing, we witnessed progress and the natural march towards an industry’s maturation.  But that sounds to me like short term winners talking.” (Randy Karnes, 2018)

Tens of Thousands  Fewer Voices

NCUA was converted to an independent agency with a three-person board in 1977.

The results include 12,000 fewer charters and the elimination of  12,000 CEO’s and volunteer board’s leadership platforms.   Their employees  lost independent career opportunities as these organizations were shuttered. 

The movement’s human capital–enthusiasm, insights and entrepreneurial spirit–has been lessened.   

Communities have fewer options.  As charters are pulled up by their roots, the movement becomes less diverse, less democratic, more concentrated and remote.

Credit unions are being depleted.   No movement can sustain itself built on subtraction rather than addition and multiplication.

In the end there will be no need for an NCUA or logo.

 

Posted on

Combinations, Corporations, Culture and Credit Unions

Are credit unions corporations?   Not in the technical legal sense, but in the way they see their role in society as they grow?

A critic of many aspects  of corporate activity is writer Jared Brock.   His posts cover many segments of endeavor, but always come back to an institution’s impact on individual lives.

Here are some of his recent assertions:

The entire point of multinational corporations is to shatter local resilience and self-reliance, disconnecting people from land and place and generational skillsets, creating a system of utter corporate dependence.

But as you can see, much of our shopping is human-scale and relational.

If you’ve ever been to a corporate “community event” or witnessed a corporate-created “grassroots campaign,” you know exactly what I mean. Everything’s a bit sanitized and clean and proper and nice and… off.

That’s because corporations aren’t relational — they’re transactional.

They can’t give freely and creatively.

Their legal fiduciary reason for existence is to take.

And human beings can smell it from a mile away.

People create culture → Corporations kill culture.

A question for credit unions:   Given his critique, do mergers of financially sound and long serving credit unions promote cooperative culture? Or are they examples of the transformation to a corporate mindset?

Posted on

A $35 Million Example of an “Emperor with No Clothes”

Hans Christian Andersen’s story about the emperor who had no clothes is familiar to most. You can read the parable here to refresh your memory. Two swindling weavers convinced the entire court and the emperor that their invisible new uniforms were perfect. They pocketed the gold and silver threads for the garments stealing them for their own use.

I have always wondered why it took a small boy in the crowd watching the king’s parade of “new” clothes to shout out, “But he hasn’t got anything on.”  What was the reason for everyone else’s silence?

  • Fear of authority when challenging the emperor’s actions?
  • Loss of a senior position if a trusted advisor should speak up?
  • Who am I to argue with the emperor’s wisest, most senior advisors?
  • Onlookers: not my problem if the emperor wants to go out naked
  • Too isolating to be a person stating an inconvenient truth?
  • Situation so far-fetched that no one believes the facts before their eyes?
  • Perhaps an example of: “you can fool all the people some of the time”

Whatever the explanation, the story raises the issue of people avoiding uncomfortable realities that no one else wants to acknowledge. In the merger situation below, a single thoughtful and brave member decided to call out what no one else would, even though the facts were presented in plain sight.

The Merger of Financial Center and Valley Strong Credit Unions

On May 31, 2021, Michael Duffy, CEO of the $643 million, 65-year old Financial Center Credit Union(FCCU) announced the intent to merge with the $ 2.4  billion Valley Strong:

The phrase ‘Growing Together,’ is a perfect adage, as this merger represents a strategic partnership between two financially healthy, future focused credit unions committed to providing unparalleled branch access, digital access, and amazing service for the Members and the communities they serve,” says Michael P. Duffy, president/CEO of Financial Center. “In a financial services sector that is constantly evolving, this merger is a true embodiment of the credit union industry’s cooperative mind-set. At its core our partnership with Valley Strong represents us selecting the best credit union partner to help us achieve our goals faster than we could duplicate on our own.

“As the CEO of Financial Center Credit Union for the past 21 years, my perspective on mergers has evolved just as much as our industry has in that same time period,” Duffy continued. “As credit unions built by select employee groups (SEGs) increasingly partner with community credit unions, I have marveled at what credit unions of today’s scale can accomplish when they join forces with their Member-owners and communities chiefly in mind.”

The 86% member approval in the merger vote was announced in a September 27 Valley Strong press release which included this statement by CEO Duffy explaining the rationale:

“In a financial services sector that is constantly evolving, this merger is a true embodiment of the credit union industry’s cooperative mindset. At its core, this is about a collective mindset that allows us to achieve our goals faster than we could duplicate on our own.”

When asked what it means to Members to achieve these goals faster, Duffy added, “We recognize merger critics may point to our healthy capital and ask why we didn’t just opt to go it alone. That was of course the first consideration. But the reality is, we do the same things for the same reasons so why not eliminate redundancy and grow faster and better together. On our own, it would take years to develop and implement while still having the challenges scale, so why not give members more and build the organization for the next decade at the same time.” Duffy continued, “We took our national search for a partner seriously. Together with Valley Strong, it’s a win-win, because members are the focus, and we will be able to serve even more people throughout San Joaquin and the state of California.”

The Member-Owners’ Notice of the Merger

As required by NCUA rule, FCCU provided members the reasons for the merger. These general descriptions included “consolidation of energy and resources, to better serve members through competitive pricing and services, additional products, enhanced convenience and account access and continued employee and volunteer representation.”

The member Notice then listed seven categories of benefit with a little more detail.  For example, Duffy will become Chief Advocacy Officer for Valley Strong and be “actively involved in the day-to-day operations.”  In addition, the Notice described two contributions to a non-profit charitable foundation FCCU2.  More on this community outreach initiative later.

Share Adjustments and Golden Handshakes

At midyear 2021, FCCU had net worth of 16% totaling $107 million or twice the ratio of Valley Strong. The Notice included a special dividend distribution of almost $15 million based on two factors.

  1. Each member will receive $100 for every five years of membership to be capped at $1,000 for members who joined in the oldest tier 1946-1976.
  2. A dividend of .869% on the 12-month average balance for “Base” shares with a $500,000 ceiling on the maximum shares included.

Each member’s pro rata share of the net worth at the merger vote is $3,620.  However, the credit union will pay only an average of $505  per member just 14% of their common wealth.  To equalize FCCU’s with Valley Strong’s per member net worth, each member should have received an average of $1,800.

The four golden handshakes, that is additional compensation over and above what employees would have earned without the merger, will be paid to:

  • Nora Stroh EVP for $150,000 if she stays with the new credit union for 30 days following the merger;
  • Steve Leiga, VP Finance of $150,000 for staying 30 days after merger completion;
  • Amanda Verstl, VP HR $257,352  for retention, severance opportunity, accrued sick and leave payout;
  • David Rainwater VP Information for $244,000 for staying through the system conversion.

These special payments are similar to other merger transactions although the special dividend structure is unusual and recognizes the generations of member loyalty.

Two questions arise from these disclosures in the Notice:

  1. Why would a $643 million credit union with over 16% net worth and $521 million in investments believe it is unable to provide competitive member services and pricing into the future?
  2. And why did CEO Duffy not receive any merger payment? The Notice further notes that he and the VP finance would not receive anything from the one-time bonus dividend.

Some Context

Michael Duffy joined the credit union in October 1993 and has been President for over two decades.   The EVP and COO, Norah Stroh, has been with the credit union for almost 32 years. She joined as HR, benefits and personnel manager in February of 1990.  In January 2001, she was promoted to her current number two role.

Michael and Norah are brother and sister.

Steve Leiga, VP Finance, joined the credit union in January 2002.  Amanda Verstl’s employment at FCCU exceeds 13 years.  David Rainwater’s connection began as a summer intern in 2011.

For an experienced team to suddenly decide merger is the best course for members after three decades seems somewhat unusual no matter the rationale. Why are the senior leaders of this credit taking their severance bonuses and closing up shop? Where is the succession planning, or was merger a predetermined strategy?

One FCCU trend seems especially puzzling. Why is there no Lending VP? Who had this responsibility for this most critical role in every credit union?   The loan to asset ratio has declined in the last five years from 39% to 16.9% at June 2021. The $107 million in reserves equals the net amount in outstanding loans, for a risk based net worth ratio of 100%.  All the $521 million investments are in cash or government and GSE securities.

When reviewing the two last available 990 IRS filings for the credit union, a dramatic change occurs.

In 2017, the three most senior employees were paid a total of $1.4 million or 21% of total salaries and benefits.  In 2018 the three were paid $3.1 million, or 46.5% of total salaries. The 121% increase is in just one year.  In both years the CEO is a member of the five-person board which approved these compensation packages.

No IRS 990’s are yet available for 2019 and 2020 to know if this trend continues.  It would certainly be useful for the credit union to post public copies of these required filings in light of the merger decision.

A Million Dollar Public Contribution-Conflating Personal and Professional Roles

 

As the credit union’s lending portfolio continued to decline and member numbers fell from a peak of 32,382 in 2017 to 29,101 today, the credit union made a very public contribution to the city of Stockton.

In April, 2020 Michael Duffy presented a $1.0 million check to a COVID relief effort, the 209 Stockton Strong fund. The  subsequent  press release described the effort as follows: “This donation represents a continued commitment from the entire FCCU team. They are donating, together, out of the care and concern for others in their local community. . . Duffy presented this opportunity to the FCCU team as a way to help their community and received immediate support with a resounding yes.”

Even though the announcement states the $1 million donation is from “the entire FCCU” team and the Michael Duffy Family Fund, there is no information of how much came from each source.   The only public reference to the Duffy Family Fund is as one of several donor advised funds managed by the Community Foundation of San Joaquin.

The mayor’s office prepared for Facebook an 11 minute video of this donation featuring Duffy and a six foot enlarged check with the credit union’s name. And here is this brief excerpt on the KRCA evening news.

Philanthropy can certainly be positive.  Donor advised funds are an easy way for individuals to manage the timing of their contributions.  But it can also be self-interested.  This $1.0 million single “gift” is one of the highest donations I can recall associated with a credit union during this time of COVID, or any other time.

The credit union or Duffy could certainly have donated the money to the identified charities directly.  Why Duffy would combine his personal philanthropy with whatever the employees donated for this appeal is unclear.

One might suggest this conflation of professional and personal activity is a PR effort to promote the credit union, not just Duffy.

However, the IRS 990’s  show credit union funds given to a wide number of political campaigns.  There were 17 donations totaling $60,250 in 2018, including a second $10,000 contribution to the current CA governor, and donations to Stockton’s mayor.  Is this credit union money to political campaigns in the members’ best interests, or to promote the public influence of Duffy?

Why the Merger?  Why did the CEO do this?

FCCU has been a closely-run, family operation for almost three decades.   The CEO is a member of the five-person board. The credit union is more than financially sound, with its very liquid balance sheet and net worth two and a half times the well capitalized 7% standard and twice Valley Strong’s ratio of 8.7%.

Why would the entire leadership of the credit union give up their 66-year history of relationships at the peak of financial capability?  Motivations can be hard to discern.  But on August 26, 2021, a member posted his analysis for opposing the merger on NCUA’s website for comments:

Vote NO on the proposed merger until the provision to transfer $10 million of member assets to a non-profit foundation for “Community Outreach” is eliminated from the proposal. Member financial assets of any amount, especially $10 million, should not be given away for any purpose. If Financial Center Credit Union is so flush with cash that it wants to give away $10 million, then that amount should be distributed to members. I’ve written to FCCU twice asking for the rationale for giving away $10 million. They have failed to answer me, obviously because there is no rational reason for giving away $10 million from its member-owners.

Given that FCCU’s current CEO Patrick Duffy is being given the unexplained job of “Chief Advocacy Officer” in the Continuing Credit Union, it’s easy to guess that Duffy’s only job duties will be running the new foundation doling out the $10 million to his favorite groups and his own large compensation. The so-called “FCCU 2 Foundation” was created less than two months ago for setting up Duffy in his new give-away-our-assets role. In any case, FCCU’s failure to explain to members any rationale for GIVING AWAY $10 MILLION OF MEMBER ASSETS is insulting and outrageous. Vote NO on the merger until the $10 million giveaway of our assets is eliminated from the merger proposal.

The FCCU2 Foundation was set up on June 25, 2021.  The two persons listed with the registration are Manuel Lopez, the credit union’s chair, as the Foundation’s CEO; Michael Duffy is the agent for service.  The organization is described only as a domestic non-profit.  Its address is the same as the credit union’s main office in Stockton.  As stated in one other public notice: The company has one principal on record: The principal is Michael P Duffy from Stockton CA.

The member merger Notice states the total funding committed for this new foundation is $35 million.  There is the initial grant of $10 million from the members’ reserves at FCCU. The Valley Strong members are committed to donate $2.5 million per year of their  funds for the next ten years for the remaining $25 million.

The purpose of the non-profit in the merger Notice is:  “community outreach-charitable and educational activities to benefit the greater Stockton area.”  No further rationale is provided why this entirely new organization created and run by Duffy should be given $35 million of members’ money.

A lone member, Frederick Butterworth who in August posted on NCUA’s comments page makes the obvious point: this emperor has no clothes.

The Duty of Care and the Duty of Loyalty

But the situation is more serious than the action of establishing a $35 million fund as a personal sinecure for CEO Duffy as he transfers leadership of the credit union to another board.

In a widely publicized court sentencing hearing last week of a former credit union CEO the following statements were made in court:

U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss: The (CEO) shirked his duty to act in the best interests of the credit union and its account holders, exploiting his position for personal gain.

Federal prosecutors said the CEO viewed the credit union as his personal fiefdom, repeatedly betraying his fiduciary duties to the institution and its members.

“This was a family-run business,” Judge Kaplan said of the credit union. . . “If you ran a delicatessen you could do what you want. But this was a federally insured credit union and you were oblivious to that fact.”

The fiduciary duty of directors and managers is more than avoiding criminal conduct.    NCUA’s legal suits against selected corporate directors and management were based on violations of their fiduciary duties of Care and of Loyalty.

Were the boards and managers following these standards when committing $35 million of member money to the FCCU2 Foundation to fund the work of the Chief Advocacy Officer Duffy?   Is this two-month-old foundation just a means of providing future compensation to the former CEO? Was this ten-year funding commitment from Valley Strong a requirement of the merger?

Whatever word one uses to describe this setup -a bonus, a buy-out, or a quid pro quo/kickback-it appears to be a betrayal of fiduciary duty to the members of both credit union by their respective CEO’s and directors.

In March NCUA conserved the $ 106  million Edinburg Teachers Credit Union with a 22% net worth ratio and a loan to share of 14.6%.   The only public information suggested by the  media for the action, given the strong financials,  was the average compensation of $189,000 per employee and the CEO’s compensation in excess of $8.7 million over the past eleven years.   The Texas Commissioner explained the conservatorship as “to ensure the businesses in these industries. . .are entitled to the public’s confidence.”

All NCUA participants from the field examiner to the highest levels in DC admired the clothes this emperor said he was wearing.  NCUA’s RD and assistant RD, the supervisory examiner, CURE which posted the Notice and member comment, and the California Department of Financial Institutions, liked what they saw.

All were bystanders to this event without asking why a 66-year-old credit union, overly-liquid and over-capitalized with a declining loan portfolio and inbred leadership could not continue to be run as an independent credit union for the benefit of its member-owners.  But perhaps that has not been the case for years. The CEO just took the logical next step.

The Hans Christian Andersen parable above ends as follows:

“Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?” said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, “He hasn’t anything on. A child says he hasn’t anything on.”

“But he hasn’t got anything on!” the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.

Is NCUA playing the emperor in this modern version and just walking on by? Are other credit unions the crowd? Might the “whole town” be today’s public press and Congress?

One vigilant and thoughtful credit union member proclaimed the truth about this situation.  He gave a shout out to everyone.  Is anyone listening? Or do we continue to live in a fantasy land complying with regulations that don’t protect the members who credit unions were designed to serve?

Posted on

When a Bank Owner is Better Off than a Credit Union Owner

On September 3rd, South Division Credit Union’s merger with Scott Credit Union was completed.  In this time of political and ethical disorder, this combination raises a critical issue for the future of the cooperative system.

I described the unusual circumstances of South Division’s merger in an August 13 post, Can’t We Do Better Than this?

The credit union’s commitment  to its members was clear on the website:

Once a Member, Always a Member

Membership with SDCU is on your terms. No matter where you move or how your life changes, you can maintain Membership with us. And when those life-altering moments do occur, SDCU assures you that we will be there to offer support and personalized financial services to suit all of your needs.

Our commitment to you is the driving force behind our credit union, because your life is our priority.

But the July 14, 2021 Special Meeting Notice from the CEO and seven directors recommending merger, paint a very different picture as follows:

South Division Credit Union has not grown in size or membership participation for several years and has been faced with increasing operational, regulatory and compliance expenses; lack of managerial expertise, aging Board of Directors and no effective succession plans. 

Multiple facts support this self-confessed failure.  Membership has fallen from 6,724 at December 2016 to 5,287 at June 2021.  Net worth has almost been cut in half, from 14% at yearend 2019, to 7.47 at this midyear.

This capital decline was due to operating losses of $1.995 million in 2020 and another $252,211 for the first six months of 2021.

Full time equivalent employees have been reduced from 26 to 17.  Total member loan balances have fallen by $2.5 million or 15% over the past twelve months. Top line total revenue has decreased year over year since 2016, and by 14% in the first six months of 2021 versus comparable period of 2020.

An Abandoned Ship?

Members and employees both appear to be fleeing a leaking if not sinking ship. However, during these years of declines, the CEO was garnering significant recognition from the credit union system.

At the merger date, the CEO had been in place since 1987, or 35 years.  A July 2013  Illinois Business Journal profile listed her many career involvements including :

  • Director of the ICUL board since 2003
  • Chairman of ICUL in 2014
  • President of two credit union chapters
  • 30 Year Member of CUES and Illinois CUES Council Chair
  • 30 Year Member of the IL Political Action Council and past chair
  • Service on Cuna’s Governmental Affairs Committee
  • Three years on CUNA’s state government subcommittee
  • Internationally, a member of the World Council of Credit Unions for 25 years and a founding member of the Women’s Global Leadership network.

The article also enumerated more than a dozen local charities, school and educational involvements plus multiple civic engagements by the CEO.

The awards granted to the CEO in just the past decade include:

  • The Evergreen Park Chamber of Commerce “Business Person” of the Year for 2011
  • Induction into the Illinois credit Union Hall of Fame-April 2017
  • The Credit Union House Hall of Leaders Recognition at Capitol Hill-March 2018: “a distinguished group of individuals whose leadership serves as a model for credit union leaders throughout the country.”
  • The Perpetual Tribute Award from the Illinois Credit Union Foundation at the ICUL’s 89th Annual meeting-April 2019

The Final Tally

One of the reasons for South Division’s loss in 2020 was the increase of over $1.0 million (74%) in salaries and benefits from the prior year. Was this a bonus or other benefit paid prior to announcing the merger where a disclosure would be required?

State chartered credit unions must file 990 IRS forms by May 15 after each yearend which would disclose the compensation for senior management and to the board, if any. There was no IRS 990 on file for South Division for 2020 as of the merger date.

Prior year’s filings report total CEO compensation rising annually  from $206,643 in 2016 to $290,474 for 2019. In addition, the 990’s show a split dollar life insurance plan as an asset for $3.8 million and a pension plan balance of $2.8 million.

The Merger and the Members

At June 30, 2021 the credit union reported net worth of $3.9 million less an “other comprehensive income” account of negative $2.5 million, not otherwise explained.  If this is a pension plan or other unfunded benefit, it is not clear what the obligation at the merger would be or who is responsible-Scott or South Division-if anyone.

Whatever the case, if this shortfall must be funded, certainly that requirement would seem to qualify as a merger related benefit requiring disclosure to members.  If not, then should the members have received some of the almost $4.0 million of net worth as a result of their patronage since 1935?

Enter Scott Credit Union

South Division has been in decline for years, even as the CEO garnered multiple awards and participated in numerous outside activities.

The credit union is a mess, according to its own leaders’ statement above.  Who cleans it up? How can the members be given what the cooperative promised to deliver?

Scott Credit Union would seem to be a very handsome and strong white knight riding to the rescue.  Its adherence to the cooperative model is presented on its website:

Our Cooperative Structure

Founded in 1943, Scott Credit Union is a full-service financial institution providing financial services for individuals and businesses, including free checking accounts with interest, ATMs, credit and debit cards.  .  .

Scott Credit Union, like all credit unions, is a not-for-profit financial cooperative that offers banking services. When someone opens an account with a credit union, they become a member and an owner.

Your experience with Scott Credit Union is about more than money, it’s about you getting the most value for your money and reaching your financial goals.

Our products and services and pricing are driven by our members, not by stock holders looking to increase their net worth.

So far so good; just two nagging questions.  Why was no Chicago area credit union approached to help where there would be local knowledge and an immediate network delivery expansion for members?

Scott is 240 miles and a four-to-five hour drive from South Division, so what is their game plan? So how will members benefit from a leadership team whose focus and experience is in a very different market and far away?

Was there any due diligence by Scott? How will Scott make things right for South Division members who have been “short-changed” for years?

The Other Shoe Drops

My earlier view was that Scott had drawn the “short straw” in its willingness to resuscitate South Division members’ credit union experience.  This was especially so since it is far removed from its own network and market reputation.

But then came the stunning announcement.  On August 20, 2021 Scott announced it had agreed to buy Sugar Creek Financial Corp and its Tempo Bank subsidiary with $93 million in assets. That was just ten days prior to the South Division members’ vote on merger-a done deal given Illinois’ use of proxies in mergers.

The stunning part was not the bank purchase.  Tempo Bank was in Scott’s home market and would “increase its total footprint to 22 locations across the Metro East and St. Louis area.”

No, the stunner was the juxtaposition of how Scott treated the bank’s owners versus the credit union owners of South Division.

Start with the bank’s CEO, Robert Stroh, who will retire after 45 years of service but will be “offered a consulting agreement with Scott for a period of time following consolidation.” No such agreement for South Division leaders.

The bank’s CEO observed: “We know our customers will benefit from all the additional resources that Scott Credit Union has to offer while knowing that their money is staying right here in the community.” Hmm, not the Chicago market?

But Scott’s true colors show in how they are treating the bank’s shareholders versus the credit union’s member-owners.

Scott is offering $14.2 million or a premium of approximately  $4.0 million, or 38%, over the bank’s book value at June 30, 2021.

The day before the purchase announcement, the bank’s stock closed at $11.41.  The Sugar Creek shareholders are projected to receive between $14.50-$16.50 in cash, subject to valuation adjustments when closing the P&A.  South Division members get $0.

South Division members were given words, the general promise of a better future, but no cash or even plans. Better to be a bank shareholder than a credit union owner!

But the situation is worse. Scott gets a lot more from South Division than four branches, 5,287 “underserved” members and $51 million in assets.   It receives approximately $4.0 million in South Division equity to be able to pay the premium to the owners of Sugar Creek Financial!

Scott appears to be no white knight for South Division members.  Rather, the combination seems to be birds of a feather finding each other.  Scott’s real heart is in Southern Illinois, where it is investing the $4.0 million, not suburban Chicago.

Of the three CEO’s, it is the bank executive who showed the greatest attention to their owners’ welfare.

“It Happens Every Day”

Credit union CEO’s  using mergers for self-advantage with members receiving only promises  has become  more common. The precedent of a retiring CEO  leaving with multiple industry honors, rather than honor, is not new.

Examples of CEO’s selling out the institution that provided them the platform on which they stood for much of their professional careers is an increasing pattern.

One of my former colleagues would counsel me, “it happens every day.”  I don’t accept that as a reason for “leaders” betraying their member-owner’s loyalty.

As the movement stays silent, we become complicit.  The lesson of South Division and Scott is that indifference is toxic, and it seeps into the soil upon which we all stand.

Credit unions have always asserted they have a higher role than profits and institutional growth.  Acting in the members’ best interest may be an open-ended standard, but this kind of member exploitation is a specific harm.

When some credit union leaders demonstrate they respect bank owners more than their own member-owners, the cooperative model is in trouble. They are doing things for which there is no excuse and if unchallenged, this behavior will metastasize.

The issue isn’t only the members’ welfare at South Division, Xceed, Post Office Employees, Sperry Associates or dozens of others abandoned by their “leadership.” Rather it is about the next generation of members who will not have a credit union option that seems to be anything other than just a banking choice.

That loss of uniqueness will end the valuable cooperative experiment unless current leaders have the courage to say enough is enough.

But the greater squandering is of an American economy, with deepening inequalities,  urgently in need of organizations willing to put consumers’ best interests first.

Posted on

Mergers: Can’t We Do Better than This?

At last week’s Senate Banking Committee hearing, Senator Warren challenged banking regulators about their oversight of bank mergers.

Warren told the FDIC and OCC leaders the data indicate the regulators have “no credibility” when it comes to merger supervision.

“This has turned into a check the box exercise where the outcome is predetermined,” said Warren, who plans to introduce legislation to revamp the bank merger process.

“Our regulators have a job to do and it’s our job here in Congress to make sure they do it,” Warren said.

Her observations/questions included the following as reported in the CUToday article:

“Community banks are being gobbled up. The market is being dominated by big banks. There is more concentration, higher costs for consumers, and greater systemic risk, and it is happening in plain view of the federal agencies whose job it is to keep our communities safe.”

In a question directed at the FDIC Chair McWilliams: “The FDIC has a searchable database of all merger applications received since 2013, and there have been 1,124 such applications. Out of those, how many has the FDIC denied?” The total number of denials for any reason whatsoever?”   Before McWilliams could respond, Warren said, “It’s zero.”

Is the credit union system vulnerable to this political critique?

Here is a current case.  The $52 million South Division Credit Union has called a special members’ meeting on August 30 to approve its merger with Scott Credit Union, both Illinois state charters. Is this just another “ordinary” merger announcement?

The Credit Union’s Website Promises

Since 1935 South Division Credit Union, headquartered in Cook County, IL, has been guided by these founding principles:

To meet the financial expectations and needs of the Members by providing the highest quality products and services, delivered with a sense of professionalism, friendliness, and respect for the individual Member and their common financial bond with one another. The Next Evolution in Personal Banking

Member-Focused Attention Meets Diverse Banking Options

As an open-to-the-public, not-for-profit institution, our unique focus is on you, the consumer. Our end goal is to provide service that’s customized uniquely to you, backed by offerings that address all of your banking needs.

Our credit union offers a complete array of products and services to our Members —checking, savings, debit and credit cards, vehicle and consumer loans, money market accounts and certificates of deposit, along with a variety of mortgage products. 

Member Ownership 

Unlike at a bank, you’re not just another “customer” at South Division Credit Union. You’re a Member with a say in everything that we do. And what we do is strive to add more value for our well-deserving Members. As a nonprofit, rather than pocket any profits, we pour them back into the institution to provide better rates and additional benefits for you.

SDCU is owned and democratically operated by our Members, who elect our all-volunteer Board of Directors. In turn, the Board represents our Member-owners’ interests in credit union policymaking.

Open to Anyone — Become a Member Today!

What South Division is Telling Members Now

In the July 14, 2021 Notice of Special meeting sent to members, the credit union gave the following explanation for going out of business:

The directors of the participating credit unions have concluded that the proposed merger is desirable for the following reasons: South Division Credit Union has not grown in size or membership participation for several years and has been faced with increasing operational, regulatory and compliance expenses; lack of managerial expertise, aging Board of Directors and no effective succession plans. We believe a merger would offset these trends by offering South Division Credit Union’s members access to an array of new services, more modern account management systems, improved remote electronic access for lending programs, better savings and loan rates, and additional facilities.

Voting by Proxy: A Foregone Outcome

The Notice continues: The merger must have the approval of a majority of members of the credit union who vote on the proposal. . .Illinois permits voting on merger proposals only at the meeting or by proxy. If you DO have a proxy on file at the credit union, to vote in FAVOR of the merger, you may attend and vote in person at the meeting or, do nothing and the Board of Directors will vote in favor of the merger in your stead.

To vote AGAINST the merger, you must either attend in person and vote at the meeting. . . If there is no proxy enclosed with this notice, you have a proxy on file with the credit union, and to vote NO, you must revoke that proxy by giving written notice to the board secretary. . .

What is Left Unsaid

Scott Credit Union is a $1.5 bn, strong performing credit union located in Southern Illinois.  Its main office is 240 miles, a five-hour drive from South Division’s headquarters in Evergreen Park.

Scott founded in 1943 at Scott Air Force base, sits across the Mississippi river from St. Louis.  Its multi-county southern Illinois charter is in a very different economic, social, demographic and political environment from the Cook County, Evergreen Park-based credit union.   The combination would appear to be an act of charity by Scott.  The four small branches of South Division are anything but a viable foothold in the greater Chicago market.

In addition to South Division’s board and management confession of their leadership shortcomings—aging board, no succession plan, managerial inexperience-there is the question of their fiduciary oversight.

In 2020 the credit union reported a loss of almost $2.0 million reducing the net worth from 14% to 8.4% in just one year.   The major reason for the loss was an increase of over $1.0 million in salaries and benefits above the $1.2 million of the prior year.   What were these payments for?   Was staff helping themselves to the net worth prior to announcing a merger where such payments would have to be disclosed?

A Challenge for the Credit Union System

Both the Illinois credit union supervisor and the NCUA regional director signed off on this merger.   Are they OK with the $2.0 million loss in 2020, and therefore welcome to another credit union taking this emerging problem off their hands? Were local credit unions approached and turned this “opportunity” down?   How did Scott Credit Union end up with the short straw?

Where are the other components of the credit union system as this 85-year old credit union decides to close: the league, the vendor business partners, the sponsors?  Are there no other leaders or groups in the community willing to step up to this challenge?

The promises on the credit union’s website recruited over three generations of members.  Is this legacy of failure the best option the cooperative system can devise for these members, their children and grand children?  Because of the Board’s proxy voting process, the members will have no say in this dissolution.

When Collaboration is Most Needed

The credit union system was founded and built by collaboration.  No credit union would exist today without sponsor support, volunteer effort, member loyalty and system provided solutions.   But when it comes to ending a charter, collaboration seems nonexistent.   Without all-hands-on-deck  participation in these decisions, the ability of members to trust and respect their credit union’s choice to dissolve, is suspect.  Leaders at every level of the system are abandoning this charter at a most critical time.

This merger is based on a guilty plea of incompetence.   The 2020 salary payouts raise a question of integrity.  The process is devoid of “any respect for the individual Member and their common financial bond with one another.” (web site purpose statement)

Mergers in circumstances like this undermine the cooperative system’s reputation for acting in the member’s interest.  These credibility stains cannot be washed away no matter how competent or well-meaning the continuing credit union’s intent.

One more credit union charter gone, one more hole in the cooperative boat.  Will the sinking ever end?  How will Senator Warren or other members of the committee react when they see this example of a cooperative merger?

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A Member and a CEO React to Merger Events

A member of Xceed found my post from 2020 on that credit union’s merger with Kinecta.

Reading the analysis from Should a CEO’s Last Act Be Merger, he posted a comment:

Thank you for your article.  It is right on point.  As a member of XFCU since 1982, I have seen this organization decline at an alarming rate.  Now that that the merger has taken place, I am still waiting to see the additional value I am to receive from this merger.  XFCU began its fall when it closed the Texas operations.  Today, we have no personal service, personal bankers, investment opportunity, or competitive products.  Teresa Freeborn has been the only person who benefited from the merger.  I voted against the merger since I believe she participated in the merger with a conflict of interest.  

I submitted questions to her on service to members not on the East or West Coast.  This merger has so far shown me no benefit.  I moved my business account to BOA.  As other investments matured, I moved them to Fidelity and Merrill Edge.   As a 40-year customer, I expect to move all accounts by the end of the year to BOA.  Communication is terrible.  The XFCU Officers and Board have failed all members of this organization.

In October, prior to the merger vote, he sent Xceed an email asking for more information:

Subject: XFCU / Service to Members outside of California and New York

Good Morning:

Member since 1981.  Since closing the Texas Branch, service and communication has gone down to a level that I now question whether XFCU remains an option for me.  What services will be available to me in Texas through any CU affiliations that allows me to make deposits, withdrawals locally if needed. 

I was never advised of this merger and am a very disappointed longtime customer.

Thank you,

He told me: “I never got a response.”

When I asked what his credit union experience had been he wrote:

I am a retired Insurance Executive who worked for Crum & Forster Insurance acquired by Xerox in 1980’s.  I was recently a Senior Vice President at McGriff, a BB&T Company, now Truist.   

During my working career, XFCU was an important part of my personal financial success.  I bought several homes and cars.  Today, if I needed financial help, I wouldn’t know where to start at XFCU.  I don’t recommend CU to my kids any longer as I question their viability in today’s economic challenges.

Xceed’s First Quarter Financial Results

The combination with Kinecta had not been completed as of the March 31, 2021 call report.

In the first three months Xceed reported the following:  a loss of $2.1 million (ROA of  -.87), a 22% drop in loans ($146 million), 11% share growth, 112% operating expense/total income ratio, net worth of 11%, a 9.2% decline in members and 19% fewer employees (35 out of 185 have left) both compared with one year earlier. The writer is not alone in seeing difficulty.

Kinecta reports positive ROA of .70% and a net worth of 7.8% in the same first quarter.

One observer commented on the two credit union’s longer term track records: “it looks like two rocks  being tied together and tossed into a lake to see if they can float.”

But the members are already bailing out.   Unfortunately, it is they who will suffer the loss of value as the writer detailed in his experience above.

A Different Decision: A CEO Closes a Merger Conversation

In talking with a CEO of a $2.0 billion credit union, I asked if he had ever discussed a merger, especially with a much larger firm in his market area.  The two were intertwined and competed directly.

He said yes, the topic had come up.  Both had grown at the same rate, both had sound performance.   But he didn’t pursue the option.

This non-merger had produced a very beneficial result.  In his assessment: “Our competition keeps the entire market for consumers honest because we price against each other.”

In this case two separate, strong, competing credit unions are helping all consumers “stay afloat.”

Posted on

Do Small Credit Unions Matter?  Should They?  Will They?

In March 2014 before Jim Blaine laid down his sword, err pen, he wrote about the demise of small credit unions.  In the blog Clubbing Baby Seals, he used numbers to describe this decline concluding: “We’re in the midst of a “CU ecological” meltdown.” And the cooperative climate has only gotten hotter since.

The Less than $10 Million Segment Trends

The starting point in Jim’s analysis was ten years earlier in 2004 when there were 4,255 credit unions under $10 million.  At his writing, the total had fallen by half.  I updated his numbers for the most recent decade, 2010 through 2020, which show a continuing decline of the under $10 million segment from 2,908 (41% of cu’s) to 1,179 (23% of cu’s)—a 60% drop.

Many would react to these trends with a shrug: “They are what they are. This is just the marketplace at work.  These credit unions often underperform industry averages, do not provide a wide range of services, and members can find better deals elsewhere.  Besides larger credit unions continue to add members and grow. These organizations are not significant to carrying out the cooperative mission.”

Why Credit Unions Should Be Concerned With this Trend

This trend matters because of its impact on the system’s future  in two respects.

  1. All credit unions start small. Every credit union operating today was organized with assets in the hundreds or thousands of dollars.  From these small seeds large oaks can grow.  While all credit unions under $100 million show declines in charter numbers, segments above this amount have added 351 to their number in the same decade.  All emerged from the smaller asset segments. For the largest category, greater than $1 billion in assets, the count has gone from 167 in 2010, to more than 375 today.  Without seeds, the system will eventually run out of crops to harvest.
  2. The traditional interpretation of the decline is incomplete. Credit unions from the very beginning have started and then faltered.  Most that do not sustain operations are small.  Since FOM changes in the 1980’s, the vast majority of closed charters merge with other credit unions.

In 1978 when NCUA published the ratio for the FCU survival rate–number of active charters divided by number of charters issued–the percentage was 55%.   That was after 44 years of operations.

Today that ratio is 13%. (3,185 active/24,925 FCU’s chartered).  However, the reason for this dramatic decline in sustainability is not that small credit unions cannot survive.

The Federal Regulator’s About Face

In every year beginning in 1934 (except three war years) until 1971, the number of new FCU charters granted always exceeded the number cancelled.  In that year, FCU’s were required to qualify for NCUSIF insurance.  In 1978 NCUA became an independent agency.

In the same length of 44 years of NCUA’s oversight, the number of cancelled charters has exceeded new startups every year.  The loss of just federal charters during NCUA’s  tenure as an independent agency totals 9,865—from 13,050 (in 1978) to 3,185 (2020).

The primary reason for the decline of almost 10,000 active federal credit unions is that new charters have become virtually impossible to attain. They have averaged fewer than 10 per year in this century, and only 2.5 in the last decade.

The possibility for groups of citizens to form and control their own democratically governed financial entity has been effectively extinguished by the very organization charged with overseeing the cooperative system’s safety and soundness.

So What?

With new entrants effectively turned away, the industry’s structure will inevitably become more  consolidated in much larger credit unions. The diversity in credit union charter size is being eliminated.

Some would opine, “so what?”   Members continue to join, and the industry is financially strong and independent of sponsors. This is the natural outcome of any business in a competitive market economy.

Punching Above Their Weight

Blaine’s concern about the demise of smaller credit unions was summarized as:  Small credit unions “punch well above their weight” in terms of member impact and community importance.  Every credit union was created for a purpose, rarely did that original purpose have anything to do with ‘growth’”. 

He calls out the organizing motivations for a cooperative charter: persons with a common interest getting together to improve their local circumstances and opportunity.  Members then and today care most about the service they receive.

A credit union’s asset ranking, number of branches, surcharge free ATM’s or even its multiple channels do not create loyalty if an institution cannot respond to individual and local circumstances. That is the key factor in small credit union success.

The Democratization of Financial Opportunity

Credit unions’ democratic character was created from a fabric of relationships and community support.  These local origins were their source of political support.  Even though banks have opposed credit unions from the beginning, they have been unable to block their efforts to expand member services.

“Punching above their weight” is illustrated most recently by the quickness of Congress to overturn the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Federal Credit Union act in 1998 limiting common bond to a single group.  In just months, the Credit Union Membership Access Act was passed approving the  field of membership interpretation NCUA authored in 1983.

But that success was over two decades ago.  Do credit unions conceived  in earlier eras still have the same political weight today?  Have the growth ambitions of some  via “voluntary” mergers and bank purchases raised issues of both member and public support for a less distinctive cooperative charter?

Can Small be Big Again?

I do not know what the future will bring.   Will ever-larger credit unions be increasingly viewed as just another impersonal financial option, like a bank?  Will the tax exemption survive the expansions of markets and scattering of local attention and knowledge?

Will the goodwill so critical in any industry’s ongoing success wither away as the seed corn for its future is no longer replenished? Or will credit union leaders see this declining trend as a priority and provide support comparable to the $100 million goal of CUNA’s Open Your Eyes marketing campaign?

Renewal efforts are underway. Can the initiatives to repurpose charters with new human capital be proven out?  Will the efforts to create more service center options via CUSO’s succeed?  Can the charter process be assigned to the regions so applicants are supported positively and quickly?

Two factors suggest this trend can be addressed.  The places of economic disparities and need are as numerous now as any time in our history.  The human spirit of solving problems and the values of cooperatives align with many seeking to bring change for a more equitable America.