Category: NCUA

Posted on

Awards and Institutional Culture

Most credit union associations, many credit unions, CUSOs and even some vendors present periodic awards to individuals or credit unions. These honor specific contributions and reinforce values the groups want to celebrate. Internally, awards reinforce the culture an organization is trying to cultivate.

NCUA’s Awards in 1977

My first recollection of industry awards for results was in a 1977 NCUA press release. Details are now vague. But I recall two specific recognitions.

The first was for the agency employee(s) who had helped charter the most new credit unions during the year. The second was for credit unions that achieved the highest amount of savings growth.

Both awards embodied the agency’s view of its mission and results. The contrast with today’s absence of new charters, promotion of mergers and idolatry of net worth is stark.

An Insight from Police Reform

The Denver Police Department’s decade long effort at cultural reform included reviewing its award ceremonies.

Prior to this effort, every year officers were recognized for “justified use of force,” that is deadly shootings in the line of duty.

The new award, honoring efforts to deescalate encounters, was named the “perseveration of life.”

Awards Say Who We Are

Whether the action be a lifetime achievement or a one-year recognition for outstanding results, awards publicize organizational mindsets.

For many years NCUA and state regulators have viewed their primary task as a mortuary for credit unions they supervise. The announcements come on Friday evenings after reporters have gone home of another “justifiable homicide.” IBEW Local Union 712 Closes; West Penn P&P Assumes Loans, Assets, Shares

Might a new recognition change this regulatory mindset? Is now the time for the credit union community to honor the regulator, supervisor or examiner(s) whose present actions best exemplifies cooperative innovation, credit union ideals and most importantly, sustainability?

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted on

NCUA’s Mindset in Responding to Problems, Is the Problem

Every organization will experience problems. Some imposed by external events. Others by internal failures because all are run by imperfect human beings.

Internal performance shortfalls occur even with the strongest, well-documented corporate cultures: harassment, inappropriate comments, disdain for conflicts of interest, performance failures, improper expense claims or even showing up on time.

Unfortunately, the instinctive response by government is to spend more resources. Moreover, the situations are addressed in secret with no explanations or analysis, except for after the fact announcements of a “solution.” With no transparency, there is no accountability.

A classic example is NCUA’s approach is the response to the recent revelations of a corrupt General Counsel and an earlier IG report on questionable travel reimbursements for senior staff.

Throwing Money at the Issue

Instead of addressing issues head on, the NCUA Board reacted to the public revelations of these in-house shortcomings, by creating a new position: Chief Ethics Officer.

The salary range: $227,113 to $263,000 per year. However, this may be just the initial increased cost as the person’s duties include “direct(ing) the activities of the office, and assisting and advising subordinate attorneys and/or other staff on assignments”

A Leadership Failure, Not a Resource Problem

The Chief Ethics posting above also lists the follow requirements:

EXECUTIVE QUALIFICATIONS: you (must) possess all the executive qualifications listed below. (details omitted)

Leading Change.
Leading People.
Results Driven.
Business Acumen.
Building Coalitions/Communication.

These would be superb qualifications for a Board member. It is instructive that the Board did not believe these qualities existed within its own body or within the staff of the agency. One has to question whether these capabilities can be imported if they are not part of the culture.

Spending more resources when problems occur is a mindset that provides a façade but not real change. The “ethics issues” or other challenges will just come back in another guise. For effectiveness has to start at the top. It cannot be delegated. In most organizations it is called leadership.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted on

Let’s Put a Stake in the Concept of Risk-Based Capital

Like Dracula in a horror movie or Covid outbreaks, risk-based capital (RBC) keeps showing up on NCUA’s agenda.

It is again on this Thursday’s June 25th NCUA Board meeting. No details are provided, but hopefully this will be the decision to finally kill this burdensome, ineffective and most importantly, wrong-headed effort

Banking Regulators Repeal RBC

The most important FACT is that RBC does not work. Just ask the FDIC, FED and OCC which unanimously ended RBC requirements and all related calculations.

On September 17, 2019, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation passed a final rule providing community banking organizations under $10 billion in assets a simple, single capital standard. The new adequacy standard is the bank leverage ratio.

As stated in the press release: “The leverage framework will greatly simplify regulatory determinations regarding capital adequacy and eliminate the need for qualifying community banking organizations to calculate and report quarterly risk-based capital ratios in their Call Reports.”

Bankers Adopt the Credit Union Capital Adequacy Measure

This singular, clear banking capital adequacy standard is the same calculation credit unions have used in their 100 plus years of existence.

Since 2014 NCUA has brought this proposal forth, time and again. The final rule adopted, but implementation postponed several times, runs over 400 pages.

Credit unions have universally found fault and opposed it. One board member, McWatters, has questioned the legal basis for it. It will be important for Hood and McWatters to be aligned as board member Harper has defended the RBC rule in the face of all contrary evidence.

Now is the time to completely withdraw this totally flawed, burdensome and useless concept.

The banking regulators unanimously concluded there is no benefit, even in calculating the multiple ratios.

What more evidence does the Board need to end this costly effort? It has too long distracted NCUA and its examiners from the real work of helping credit unions better serve members.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted on

Who Is Kyle Hauptman?

Short answer: He is President Trump’s nominee to replace Mark McWatters on the NCUA board.

Real question: Why him?

Chairman Hood’s description: “Kyle has significant experience in the financial services sector as well as the public policy arena.”

Hauptman’s Resume

His politics: Currently he works for Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) as the Staff Director for the Economic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. He was a voting member on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies from 2016-2017. He served on President Donald J. Trump’s transition team in 2016.

Previous professional responsibilities: Executive Director of the Main Street Growth Project and Senior Vice President at Jefferies & Co; a bond trader for Lehman Brothers in New York City, Tokyo and Sydney.

Education: A master’s in business administration from Columbia Business School and a Bachelor of Arts from University of California, Los Angeles.

Personality: Insight to his interpersonal style and philosophy can be found in this Public Square Broadcast from 2016 discussing the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Two Takeaways: Questions and a Lesson Repeated

  1. The Questions: Kyle is intelligent, a free market proponent and familiar with the Wall Street financial world. His republican orthodoxy includes low taxes, skepticism of government, and strong belief in the role of the free market.

He appears to have no experience with cooperatives or credit unions. An important purpose of cooperative design is as an antidote to market shortcomings.  How will his market orthodoxy align with credit unions’ unique role? Will he see them as just another species of financial institution with only a different pedigree? How will his worldly experiences and intellectual skills mesh with NCUA’s bureaucracy? How will he interpret the Board’s “management” responsibility of the Agency as stated in the FCU Act? What does his Main Street slogan “It’s time for Washington to do its job” mean for NCUA?

  1. The Repeated Lesson: At a time of multiple national crises, the trades and credit union system again failed to support a candidate with experiences and knowledge of the industry. The NCUA Board will have another stranger to the history, personalities and institutions that make credit unions who they are. Also lacking is any exposure to NCUA’s multiple institutional responsibilities and its track record, both good and bad, in carrying these out.

At a time when the three Washington DC based trades are sending daily emails about all the hard work they perform representing credit union interests, this appointment is a reminder of how limited their influence is.

The Need to Speak Up

The NCUA Board will still be composed of three persons whose appointments look like filling “jobs for the boys.” It would be refreshing if just once, the NCUA board had an executive who knew something about the industry, believed in its singular role and was committed to seeing it thrive no matter the circumstances. Until credit union people learn to speak up, their “representatives” in DC will continue playing their insider games.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted on

Do Credit Unions have Enough Capital to Weather Loan Losses from the Current Crisis?

That was the first question the reporter asked. Others followed. Will some fail? Would secondary capital options help?

My Answer and the Data

Yes, the system has adequate capital. Credit unions have total reserves of almost $193 billion and an average net worth ratio over 11%.

In 2019 the industry’s annualized loan losses were .63%. At March 31, 2020, 85% of all loans were secured and first mortgages backed 43% of the portfolio. Unsecured loans were under 10%. The allowance account was 150% of all delinquent loans.

In the Great Recession of 2009, the net loan charge off rate was 1.21%; and in 2010, 1.13%. The market value of homes securing mortgages was a major concern. That is not the case today.

In 2019, the industry’s net loan losses were $6.1 billion. However. credit unions added $6.5 billion to the allowance account and still reported $14.5 billion in net income. Credit unions could see their historical loss rate of .50-.60% grow by three of four times (double the 2009/10 experience) and still be very sound.

Two Capital Sources

Averages provide a macro context, but problems are micro, in individual credit unions. Might individual credit unions have higher than average losses?

A fact of the covid economic shutdown is that the impact on individual households is disparate. According to a Bipartisan Institute Survey, 42 % of households report negative effects on income from the dual crises. For Hispanic households, the result was 60% and for black homes, 54%. Over 59% of single parent households, regardless of race, saw income reduced or were forced to seek unemployment.

Individual credit unions will have differing proportions of members financially impaired. But that is why the cooperative system has two capital sources.

The primary reserves are each firm’s retained earnings. The second is the collective capital in the NCUSIF approaching $17 billion.

Cooperatives’ Collective Capital

Unlike the FDIC fund, the cooperative system’s insurance fund was redesigned in 1984 to be a ready source of capital assistance. This assistance is authorized by Section 208 of the Federal Credit Union Act.

When the FDIC is given a troubled charter by separate supervisory authority, its role is to close the institution by liquidation or sale. Providing FDIC assistance is considered inappropriate because of public policy concerns about the use of “public money” to restore private wealth.

Credit unions create common wealth. Their reserves are the collective savings of all the members. Members in turn send 1 cent of every share in a credit union to the NCUSIF to comply with the 1% deposit requirement.

These collective reserves, updated semi-annually, are always fully available to assist individual credit unions. In the premium model, funds must come from expenses charged to the insured banks.

NCUSIF assistance in the form of cash, subordinated debt or guarantees has been used since the fund’s founding in 1971. These actions not only minimize losses, but most importantly enable familiar service to members who may be caught in the same economic circumstances as their credit union.

Capital Is Not the Issue

The dollars of capital or the level of net worth is not the primary issue for the coop system. Important yes; but more critical is how the reserves are used by credit unions and NCUA. Is it just to expense away troubled credit unions, or to invest to restore sustainable operations?

Cooperative reserves, like all capital, can be underused or misused. In a competitive market system however, capital’s objective is to gain long term returns and create competitive advantage. Liquidation is always the costliest option, both in terms of immediate expense and the elimination of all future income.

Today credit unions are working with millions of members whose financial situation has been disrupted through no fault of their own. Standing alongside members’ transitions can result in years of fervent loyalty. Similarly, the welfare of the whole system is enhanced when credit unions suffering loses, can work to again be sound.

The National Effort to Save Jobs, Assist Consumers , and Support Businesses

Every covid emergency program passed by Congress including the CARES Act with its $600 unemployment weekly increase, $1,200 one-time payments to families earning less than $75,000, the PPP loan program with loan forgiveness, the Federal Reserve purchase of EFT’s with high risk bonds, and its Main Street loans to business are public expenditures intended to prevent corporate and individual financial failure. The goal is to restore the economy and consumers to full activity as quickly as possible.

However, some at NCUA may not have bought into this bipartisan, government-wide effort. Bound by a literal PCA mindset, the NCUSIF’s CFO announced a $60 million addition to loss reserves in the May Board meeting, even though every financial trend presented was in a positive direction.

In April the Inspector General in his semi-annual report to congress confidently predicted: “Given the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate an increase in required MLRs in the coming year.” A Material Loss Review is required in every circumstance where the cost of a problem resolution exceeds $25 million.

Chairman Hood has issued policies to give credit unions greater flexibility and time to work through financial downturns. The question is whether these policies will be just press releases or will they change staff behavior

For that to happen, the Chair will need to ensure operational performance. That oversight accountability, not the amount of capital, is the real test for the Agency’s leaders.

Posted on

Crossing Red Lines

“We crossed a lot of red lines.” That is how Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell described the host of actions by the central bank responding to the COVID economic shutdown.

Actions included lowering interest rates to near zero, conducting unlimited bond purchases, implementing emergency lending programs to business, state and large city governments.

There are more steps planned, novel in scope and speed. These include the main street credit program to make at-risk loans to medium-sized businesses, buying corporate bonds and the debt of states and large cities.

The purchase of non-investment grade debt held by Exchange Traded funds was perhaps the most controversial. Included in the initial $1.3 billion purchases were bonds issued by Hertz, J.C. Penny, Neiman Marcus and Whiting Petroleum all of which have filed for bankruptcy. The US Treasury has been allocated up to $75 billion to cover potential losses on these non-bank, lending initiatives.

The Opportunity of a Crisis

But THE red line crossed that preceded all of these central bank actions was changing the internal mind set of the Federal bureaucracy. “We don’t do this. Where is the authority? We’ve never done this before. How will it work? What if we fail?”

With over one in four workers laid off, unemployment is expected to exceed 20% for May. Powell justified his innovative approach partly by the fact that the burdens of job loss are falling on those least able to afford it. They are lower paid service workers whose ranks are disproportionately women and minorities.

But changing long standing, institutional economic realities is hard. All governmental leaders find bureaucracies reluctant to move in innovative ways or at the pace of events. The easiest thing is keep doing what you have always done. The result, no real change occurs. The status quo remains.

The opportunities for transformational change can be fleeting. Public moods move quickly. Political and vested interests rise up. New approaches can be lost if not seized “in the moment” as Chairman Powell did.

He courageously decided to “cross all the institutional red lines.” Without taking that risk, the whole recovery momentum would be much more difficult.

NCUA’s Withdrawal from the Cooperative System

This crisis is an opportunity for NCUA to reverse the past decade’s pattern of unilateral, isolated and often self-serving regulatory responses in its relationships with credit unions.

Among all financial institutions, the cooperative model uniquely depends on collaboration. It is not just the basis for initial chartering, but also a singular operational advantage.

All elements of the system have a mutual responsibility for safety and soundness. Since the NCUA’s 2009 takeover of the corporate network followed by liquidation of four of the five largest corporates, it has failed to seek solutions cooperatively with credit unions and in members’ best interests.

The disruptions to financial performance by the crisis should be a turning point in this relationship. No regulatory rule or waiver, or congressional legislation, can “de-risk” the consequences of the financial toxicity caused by the pandemic and national economic shutdown.

The regulatory impulse to get rid of problems through mergers and selling member-owners to someone else when the going gets tough is a slow-moving death spiral for the industry.

Cooperative workouts are not presumed to be fast, especially when relying on retained earnings. They take time – sometimes years. They are messy. Each is unique, personal in the details. They require sweat equity and occasionally, 208/NCUSIF assistance.

The purpose of the 1% NCUSIF redesign was to keep credit unions and the system whole. Since the 2009 crisis NCUA has used the resources of this unique cooperative fund to broker problems away and avoid leadership accountability.

Crossing Red Lines to Avoid Red Ink

Jerome Powell has acted fast to help troubled industries, individual business, states and cities work their way through catastrophic revenue shortfalls and unknowable future trends. To keep the cooperative system whole while transitioning this crisis, NCUA must do the same.

The Board should establish an expectation that no credit union charter should be lost because of the current pandemic. Credit unions who work with their member-owners in this transition should expect no less than 100% support from their regulator.

This is not a legal, but a commonsense judgment. Similar to the Fed, the full range of credit union resources should be available whether this be 208 waivers and/or direct NCUSIF capital contributions.

This is a moment for NCUA to highlight the cooperative model in all its member focused uniqueness. It will require NCUA staff to grasp the opportunity for innovation by working with credit union leaders in the trenches. If that bureaucratic “red line” or mindset can be crossed, then the outcome should be a lot less red ink when this is over.

Posted on

Regulators Report to Congress

I have read the prepared testimonies of the FDIC Chair Jelena McWilliams and NCUA Chair Rodney Hood presented to the Senate Banking Committee.

The FDIC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic was clear. McWilliams’ summary:

“As it became clear that the public health emergency caused by COVID-19 would lead to a significant economic disruption, the FDIC took swift, decisive actions to (1) encourage banks to work with affected customers and communities, (2) increase flexibility for banks to meet the needs of their customers, (3) foster small business lending, (4) protect consumers and increase financial options, and (5) actively monitor the financial system.”

A Missed Opportunity

Chairman Hoods’ remarks listed every action and program that NCUA has undertaken during his tenure. These included not just responses to the supervisory and legislative COVID-19 changes, but also cybersecurity programs, diversity initiatives, the sale of taxi medallion loans and legislative changes the Agency would like to see. Not included in this legislative wish list was a request for NCUA vendor oversight, perhaps a positive indication of regulatory self-restraint.

While the focus on NCUA’s numerous rule making and emergency supervisory accommodations is understandable, I was also looking for a shout out for what credit unions were doing for members. Stories that would illustrate the cooperative difference. Numbers that would demonstrate how credit unions use their tax free capital accumulation to help members. There were only brief mentions of two credit unions’ loan volumes under the PPP program which is on point, but not unique to credit unions.

Crises are a time of heightened attention for financial services because of the vital role credit plays for members, small businesses and communities. Credit is credit unions reason for being. Retelling that story when people are listening, asking for updates, is a special moment to once again explain why cooperatives exist.

The three regulatory functions under the NCUA board are means to enhance safety and soundness. The goal of these tools is to enable each credit union to make a difference in members’ lives. The industry is doing that daily. But it didn’t get reported.

Posted on

Three-In-One

Tuesday’s virtual oversight financial hearing before the Senate Banking Committee will be a dramatic way to demonstrate the credit union difference.  

For NCUA Chairman Rodney Hood represents all the cooperative system’s regulatory and supervisory roles as a single witness. It takes three bank representatives to cover the same responsibility for that industry.

These three are:

1. Randal Quarles Vice Chairman for Supervision at the Federal Reserve Board-Liquidity
2. Joseph Otting, Comptroller of the Currency-Chartering and Supervision
3. Jelena Williams, Chairman of the FDIC-Insurance

Cooperative Design’s Simplicity

The credit union system built its federal regulatory structure over five decades (1934-1984). As credit unions evolved, their supervisory system followed the same cooperative principles. The NCUSIF is a collaborative fund where each member contributes 1 cent of every share dollar as a capitalization pool. The CLF is a mixed ownership corporation whose credit union funding is the basis for liquidity borrowings from the federal financing bank.

The advantages of an integrated, collaborative based regulator which covers all three functions are obvious. Greater efficiency, coordination, and single point of policy and oversight at the federal level.

The Drawbacks

But the potential downside of one organization is that there is no check and balance from other expert agencies. The effectiveness of the single regulator’s role depends on one board with the Chairman as spokesperson.  

If the board’s leadership  is not familiar with cooperative design and credit union differences, there will be the temptation to look to their bigger regulatory kin, who have a longer, different history and a lot more resources. When that approach is used to justify an action, NCUA can get off track.

What to Watch for in the Hearing

Because the hearing is virtual, the side by side visual of one versus three may not be as dramatic were the hearing in person.

I’m listening to see if Chairman Hood presents the credit union role from a cooperative point of view. Are there reports of the unique initiatives credit unions have taken to assist members? Or will the ever-present temptation of “bank envy” characterize his comments?  

Credit unions were not meant to be banks. Level playing field arguments or changes because the banks can do it, are not the reason the cooperative option exists.  

Hopefully the Chairman will show the difference not just in the 1 vs 3 setting,  but also by presenting the member focused accomplishments the industry has achieved in this crisis.

Posted on

A Stunning Confession of an Agency’s Leadership Shortcomings

What does it say about a federal government agency whose leadership collectively confesses to the inability to tell right from wrong, legal from illegal, good behavior from disreputable? Especially in the middle of a national crisis.

That was the stunning admission revealed by the NCUA last week as it announced a new personnel decision made at its March 19 closed board meeting.

Appointing a Chief Ethics Counsel

On April 22, NCUA announced the Board’s decision to hire a “chief ethics counsel.” Supervised by the chairman, the press release stated: “The Office of Ethics Counsel will certify the agency’s compliance with relevant federal ethics laws and regulations, promote accountability and ethical conduct, and help ensure the success of the NCUA’s ethics programs.” This had been a role of the General Counsel.

Senior federal executive appointments are traditionally selected based on candidates’ experience, convictions and proven character. Ethical obligations and moral behavior are presumed. This Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed NCUA board trio has now conceded the Agency is failing in this basic discernment ability.

So, in addition to three board members, their personal policy advisors, senior staff including an executive director and deputy, a general counsel and deputy, and the full organizational capabilities of human resources department, the agency is unable to make ethical decisions.

It makes the story of the Greek philosopher and cynic Diogenes’ quest for an honest and truthful person more than prophetic.

A Partial Record of Agency Leadership Failings

The litany of disastrous and self-serving actions by senior agency personnel in just the past three years is lengthy.

  1. A March 2020 IG report: Misuse of Official Time, Illegal Drug Use, Time and Attendance Fraud) It described how NCUA General Counsel Michael McKenna (appointed 2011) and his deputy, Lara Daly-Sims, had visited strip clubs, consumed alcohol and possibly marijuana, while on government time.
  2. The betrayal of 4,500 credit union borrowers’ whose loans were sold to a hedge fund in February 2020 in a secret bidding process.
  3. The January 2019 release of a 25-page investigation by NCUA’s OIG of then Chairman McWatters and Chief of Staff Sarah Vega’s excessive travel expenditures.
  4. The May 11, 2018 Washington Post report of Chairman McWatters overseeing the NCUA from his home in Dallas: “almost unheard of for an agency leader, to routinely work from home.”
  5. The seizure of $3.0 billions of TCCUSF surplus due credit unions via merger with the NCUSIF.
  6. The lack of transparency in the management and expenditures of billions in liquidations of the five corporates.
  7. The operating loss reported in the December 2017 NCUSIF audit, the first since the fund was created in 1971.

Compounding Error with Folly: A Self Promotion Campaign Paused

As if this admission of collective moral bankruptcy was not itself damning, the agency on April 24 further proved its leadership vacuum.

On that day the credit union press reported NCUA’s contracts with three public relation firms’ for more than $500,000 to assess, compare and then rebrand the agency signage and logo. Deliverables also included responding to agency media requests and preparing testimony.

When the December 2019 contracts became public on April 24 through FOIA requests, the agency immediately said it would postpone, not cancel, the contracts.

The agency’s operational hold of this four-month effort was explained by the need “to spend more time addressing the coronavirus crisis.” This covering story fabrication is underscored by the fact that the President declared the coronavirus national emergency six weeks earlier on March 13.

Serving Members: We’re In This Alone

NCUA’s actions, putting its interests first, accumulating greater and greater credit union resources, and making unilateral decisions, erupted in the 2008-2009 financial crisis. And the tide never reversed.

In this crisis, the lesson for credit unions serving members tirelessly under the slogan “We’re in this together,” is that they are also in this alone.

The most important authority of any government leader is moral, not rules and regs. Without this “compass,” the regulatory instruments and collaborative resources at NCUA will not be directed to enhance credit unions’ fundamental values or purpose.

Instead, NCUA’s pattern of actions betray the basic values that make credit unions different. Cooperative success relies on self-help, mutuality, burden sharing and community well-being. These values, more than unique processes and services, make credit unions who they are.

The Challenge

Daily, credit unions are carrying out this cooperative philosophy and their “essential service” designation for millions of members—many laid off, most uncertain about their future, and everyone anxious for their personal safety.

The good news is that we have been here before, and the collective changes undertaken in 1980-1984 for example, served a whole generation that followed. How will this generation of credit union leaders fulfill its destiny?

Posted on

Revealing Character

Many have observed, “crises do not create character; they reveal it.”

Recently a CEO asked if I had heard about PPF funding for credit union entities such as CUSO’s or foundations. Credit unions are not eligible. He heard reports that several entities had applied. That worried him. The concern was that such efforts compromised the claim that we take care of our own, the self-help basis of cooperative design.

I replied that if the economy continues to falter requiring hundreds of billions more of government grants, a much bigger challenge will confront the country and credit unions. Specifically, how will the government pay for all this additional spending and debt issuance. The answer is obvious: new taxes.

Therefore, credit unions must demonstrate and document our self-reliance, self-funding mutuality with members during this time. Did we use our tax-free net income and capital to benefit members, or did we just hoard it?

A Skeptical Take: Fake It Till the Fourth Quarter

Another view is that some will cry NCUA made them so dependent on “help from on high” that they could not stand alone with any integrity. Can this generation of credit union leaders rekindle the spirit of cooperative innovation and entrepreneurship? Or, will they be tempted to seek “paint by the numbers” handouts from bureaucrats who never met a payroll or face-to-face with members?

Is it possible to at least fake it until the fourth quarter and the clock runs out?

The Cooperative Way Forward

Credit unions’ purpose is to use each day as a day to do something better for members. It is reasonable to see the crisis as bigger than any one of us, as individual members or credit unions. But it is not bigger than all of us together.

That confidence arises from knowing we were created to do things that had not been done before. We do not shy away when that challenge comes again. That is why we are here.