As credit unions enter a New Year, a $3.0 billion dollar question hangs over the cooperative system. Will the AME surpluses be returned in full, or will NCUA devise a way to hold back funds as it did when closing the TCCUSF in 2017?

The September 30, 2020, update on the five corporate AME’s shows a total of $3.035 billion in surplus. This would return the membership capital, a portion of paid in capital, and even a liquidating dividend for the credit union members of four of the five corporates. Only WesCorp members will receive nothing as that estate still reports a loss.

There are two kinds of payouts. The thousands of credit unions with membership capital in the former Members United, Southwest, and Constitution corporates should receive $572 million, $712 million and $36 million, respectively, according to the September data.

The balance remaining in the US Central estate after allocating $620 million to the four other AMEs is $1.065 billion. This should go to the eleven active corporates that will share according to their pro rata ownership of membership and paid in capital at US Central. These percentages are listed below in the column headed % USC MSC.

(Source: NCUA)

NCUA documented these obligations with receiver’s certificates sent to all credit unions upon liquidation. The agency reported an initial payment of $171.4 million to over 900 Southwest Corporate shareholders in July.

Will Credit Unions Receive Their Money?

The distribution process seems simple enough. All NGN’s holders are paid off and the trusts wound up. The legacy assets are released, sold and the cash distributed. Except that is not NCUA’s traditional instinct.

When NCUA recommended closing the TCCUSF earlier than the 2021 final NGN maturity, credit unions were in favor, expecting a portion of their $5.0 billion in premiums to be returned years early. Instead NCUA “merged” the $3.1 billion into the NCUSIF, not returning the cash to credit unions.

Congress in establishing the TCCUSF in 2009 explicitly rejected this use of the funds: “These provisions are intended to ensure that the activities of the Fund are restricted to resolving problems in the corporate credit union system, and not used for other purposes, such as for dealing with natural person credit union problems.”

To merge and retain the funds, NCUA repudiated all previous analysis by raising the NOL above 1.3%, a distortion still practiced today. And it immediately expensed $650 million in the year’s final quarter to add to NCUSIF’s loss reserves—without explanation.

When NCUA closed the TCCUSF, it promised future “dividends” which were actually refunds of premiums paid. Credit unions received a $735 million “dividend” in 2018, and a second $160.1 in 2019. However, NCUA still held onto at least $1.3 billion more in surplus by keeping the NOL at 1.38 versus the 1.3 cap in place for 35 years.

In closing the TCCUSF early, NCUA has returned only 29% ($895 million) of the TCCUSF surplus to credit unions. The Agency retained or spent the other 71%.

Government Craves Funds

The innate bureaucratic reluctance to return credit union money is supported by some NCUA board members who openly advocate for more NCUSIF funding. Board member Harper covets the FDIC’s flexibility, the freedom to assess and risk rate premiums, and its ability to set the NOL at whatever level the FDIC determines is necessary.

Harper’s statements show a misunderstanding of the NCUSIF’s unique financial model. Credit unions’ cooperative undertaking is to always maintain 1% of insured shares as a perpetual underwriting commitment. In return for this open-ended funding, credit unions, fearful that government would just spend these ever-flowing deposits, asked for and received statutory and operational guardrails on the fund’s management. These are the constraints that Harper now wants to undo.

The FDIC’s premium model Harper frequently references has required government bailouts on at least three occasions. NCUSIF, never. That’s why the NCUA 1984 restructuring was called “A Better Way.”

As former NCUA Chairman Ed Callahan prophesized in NCUA’s 1984 Annual Report, “Don’t set it up and forget about it. It’s unique. It’s a better way. But just as important, it’s yours to monitor—because if you don’t it’ll go just like everything else government touches. When government gets more money, it wants to spend more. Our goal is to spend less. You have to hold us to that promise.” (How to Keep Your Insurance Fund Strong and Cost Effective, pg 18, NCUA 1984 Annual Report)

Action Required

Start by asking the NCUA board to publish a plan for winding up the AMEs and distributing the cash. The audits will soon be done. There are no reasons to withhold any details of the remaining assets and their value.

Every credit union will benefit from this clarity and knowing there is a commitment to return the funds. The Corporate system will also gain additional capital to expand their services.

Already there are discrepancies between the latest AME numbers and the membership capital totals NCUA published. It is vital to NCUA’s credibility to produce its plan with full details. Another regulator described the importance of such action as follows:

“The essence of an effective deposit insurance system is the trust of the banking public in the operations of the deposit insurer. The only way to build trust is to make those operations transparent so that your stakeholders have the information and the means to hold you accountable. It is all about being accessible, understandable, and responsive to both regulated entities and those we seek to protect vis-à-vis deposit insurance.

“If you do not trust the system in which you live, you do not feel a part of it. It is not your government.” –Jelena McWilliams, Chair FDIC

When NCUA closed the TCCUSF in 2017 (ahead of the 2021 NGN final maturities) credit union’s expectation was an early return of their special premiums. But the Agency disavowed that hope by keeping all the money. Let’s ensure the money goes to where it belongs this time, all $3.0 billion plus.

The total assets of the NCUSIF are approaching $20 billion, all of which are invested in U.S. Treasury securities. Yet there appears to be no active oversight of fund management. NCUA has passed a rule, examiner’s guidance and numerous letters to ensure credit unions implement an interest rate risk (IRR) policy. This required practice does not seem to be followed within NCUA.

In the September 2020 NCUSIF statements, the CFO reported the following new fixed rate, fixed term investments during the month:

2 Year at .12%
3 Year at .15%
4 year at .20%
5 Year at .27%
6 Year at .36%
7 Year at . 45%

These yields are at historic lows. There is only one direction rates can go. The only question is when. While the Fed has indicated it will keep this level until the recovery and inflation are well underway, there is no way to know how soon this will be.

Are these prudent investments given these unusual economic circumstances? Does NCUA have an IRR policy for this $20 billion of credit union funds?

The Revenue Implications

Almost all the NCUSIF’s income is from its investments. The revenue from this fixed 7-year ladder is easy to calculate at current rates.

For each $100 million, 10 basis points in yield will generate annual income of $100,000.

For example, in the above investments, the additional annual income by going from a 2- to 3-year fixed term is $30,000 per $100 million.

Extending from a 2- to 7-year term, results in a .33% or $330,000 pickup for the added five years of fixed rate risk.

NCUSIF’s total investment income was $306 million in 2019. Revenue is $211 million for the first nine months of 2020. So, the incremental revenue gain going further out the curve in the current rate environment is inconsequential. Investing $1 billion dollars fixed for 7 years for a .38% gain in yield versus staying short term adds only $3.8 million more in annual revenue.

Shock Testing the Strategy

NCUA requires all credit unions to perform IRR shock tests of their investments to determine the impact on revenue and net economic value (NEV) of the portfolio in various rate scenarios.

The table below shows three different scenarios for a parallel and immediate increase across the entire yield curve for the fund’s September investments.

Term	Rate	Base Price	Up100 Price	Up100 % Price Change	Up200 Price	Up200 % Price Change	Up300 Price	Up300 % Price Change
4 Years	0.20%	100	96.033	-3.97%	92.069	-7.93%	88.108	-11.89%
5 Years	0.27%	100	95.029	-4.97%	90.06	-9.94%	85.093	-14.91%
6 Years	0.36%	100	94.024	-5.98%	88.051	-11.95%	82.081	-17.92%
7 Years	0.45%	100	93.019	-6.98%	86.041	-13.96%	79.066	-20.93%

A 300-basis point shock test (final column) is the minimum required by examiners. In this shock of the four longest maturities, the decline in principal value is from 12 to 21%. That means investments could not be converted to cash without taking a significant capital loss or a significant “haircut” if used as collateral for borrowing.

This outcome is a critical in evaluating whether the marginal revenue gain out the curve is worth the risk to principal when rates change.

Rates will certainly go up. No one knows the timing, how fast, or how far. The second judgment therefore, considers the probability of increased revenue from higher future rates which would exceed the short-term gain in income by extending out the curve now.

When the Fed begins its move, it will most likely change the current 0-.25 bps overnight rate to a range of .25-.50 basis points. This is the pattern of rate adjustments, both up and down, over the past decade. Therefore, this first change by itself will result in overnight rates in excess of the current seven-year fixed rate return.

Sitting on a $585 Million Gain in Value

The most immediate need for a coherent IRR strategy, is that the NCUSIF’s existing investments now have a market value that exceeds book, by almost $600 million.

Do nothing till maturity and the gain goes away. Sell part of the gains now and the fund records more than enough revenue to meet its projected expenses in 2021.

By shortening the average life with a partial rebalancing, the fund will then be positioned to follow rates up.

Who Oversees NCUSIF IRR Strategy?

Analyzing the risks to principal and income from September’s investment decisions suggests a reassessment of current investment practice is much needed.

Who is responsible for this analysis? Who monitors the relevance and execution of the IRR policy, if there is one?

If this were a credit union, we know for certain what the answers would be. Management drafts and carries out policy. The Board approves policy and monitors performance.

In the case of the NCUSIF, these two critical functions are clouded in bureaucratic fog. The agency is explicit in assigning IRR responsibility for a credit union. Should policy be any less explicit for the NCUSIF? Should this activity be part of the monthly report to the Board?

Where is the OIG?

A quick review of OIG activity would suggest that once again, the OIG is asleep at the switch when it comes to monitoring NCUA’s internal conduct. Here is a report of its audit in 2011 of NCUA’s external review of IRR in examinations.

“In 2011 NCUA’s Inspector General released a report on a “self-initiated” audit to determine (1) whether the National Credit Union Administration’s (NCUA) interest rate risk (IRR) policy and procedures help to effectively reduce IRR; and (2) what action NCUA has taken or plans to take to identify and address credit unions with IRR concerns. To accomplish our objective, we interviewed NCUA headquarters and regional management and staff. We also obtained and reviewed NCUA guidance, policies, procedures, and other available information regarding interest rate risk. In addition, we judgmentally selected five credit unions, one from each of NCUA’s five regions, and analyzed the corresponding examination and supervision reports and related documents. We determined that NCUA has taken steps to identify and address credit unions with interest rate risk concerns.” [emphasis added]

However, the OIG is silent on this topic in NCUA’s internal IRR. NCUA’s “policy and procedures” for its own responsibility, if they exist. certainly call for a similar audit.

Below are the Agency’s requirements for effective credit union IRR practice. They provide a detailed framework for NCUA’s own investment management.

Excerpts from NCUA’s IRR Requirements for Credit Unions from the rule, FAQs and guidance in letters. All excerpts are verbatim.

Why is the Interest Rate Risk (IRR) rule written as a requirement for insurance?

Interest rate risk is a core risk which confronts FICUs; similar risks exist with regards to lending and investments for which regulatory requirements for insurance already exist. As a requirement for insurance the rule applies to all FICUs. The rule combines the many elements of asset liability management into a comprehensive framework for managing core risk.

IRR Policy

Who is responsible for the adequacy of the policy?

The Board of Directors is responsible for a credit union’s IRR policy.

What should the policy include?

A written policy should:

• Identify parties responsible for review of the credit union’s IRR exposure.
• Direct appropriate actions to ensure that management identifies, measures, monitors, and controls IRR exposure.
• State the frequency with which monitoring and measurement will be reported to the board.
• Set risk limits for IRR exposure based on selected measurement. (for example, GAP, NII or NEV)
• Choose tests such as interest rate shocks, that the credit union will perform using the selected measures.
• Provide for periodic review of material changes in IRR exposure and compliance with board approved policy and risk limits.
• Provide for assessment of the IRR impact of any new business activities prior to implementation.
• Provide for an annual review of policy to ensure it is commensurate with size, complexity and risk profile of the credit union.
• When appropriate, establish monitoring limits for individual portfolios, activities, and lines of business.

Oversight and Management

How should management implement the Board policy?

Management should:

• Develop and maintain adequate IRR measurement systems.
• Evaluate and understand IRR exposures;
• Establish an appropriate system of internal controls (risk taker should be separate from those measuring, i.e. does the modeler also pick the investments?);
• Allocate sufficient resources for an effective IRR program (should include competent staff with technical knowledge of the IRR program);
• Identify procedures and assumptions involved in the IRR measurement system (i.e. the credit union’s IRR model inputs);
• Establish clear lines of authority for managing IRR; and
• Provide a sufficient set of reports to comply with Board approved policies.

When should I consider my IRR management program as being effective?

Your program will be considered effective when it has a well-defined policy and it identifies, measures, monitors and controls interest rate risk, and you use these to guide decision making. Your program should be able to adjust as products are added or increased, interest rates shift, balance sheet changes and capital positions change.

Assumptions For IRR Policy

Projected interest rate assumptions are a critical part of measuring IRR and may be generated from internal analysis and/or external information-provider sources. Internal interest rate forecasts, which may be derived from implied forward yield curves, economic analysis, or historical regressions, should be documented to support the assumptions used in the analysis. Key rate assumptions that should be considered include assumptions for relevant market rates, repricing rates, replacement interest rates, and discount rates.

Stress Testing

Stress testing, which includes both scenario and sensitivity analysis, is an integral part of IRR management. Scenario analysis simulates possible outcomes given an event or series of events, while sensitivity analysis estimates the impact of change in one or only a few of a simulation model’s significant assumptions.

With IRR stress testing, the modeled scenarios involve changing interest rates by defined amounts and potentially severe magnitudes. At a minimum, standard stress tests typically include instantaneous, parallel, and sustained shocks in the yield curve of +/- 300 basis points. [emphasis added]

Parallel and static interest rate shocks in the yield curve of only +/- 300 basis points may not be sufficient to adequately assess IRR. In addition to the standard IRR policy limits, a credit union must determine the number of potential interest rate movements, including meaningful stress situations for which it will measure and analyze its IRR. In developing these appropriate rate scenarios, management should consider a variety of factors, such as the shape and level of the current and historical term structure of interest rates.

Operational Considerations

The use of stress testing is an essential discipline within the IRR management process. By generating a variety of stress test results, a credit union gains critical insight into the specific factors that have a material impact on the risk measurement results. Risk management decisions are better supported when the decision makers have a range of information available to guide risk mitigation actions.

If the NCUA board approves a reduction in NCUA’s budget for 2021, it will be the first time in 35 years the budget has been reduced, not increased. In fact, the Agency was able to cut its budget for three years in a row, 1982-1985. Here is how NCUA did it as documented in Agency records.

The Credit Union System 1984 and 2020: 10,229 Fewer Charters

To comprehend the unprecedented nature of NCUA’s prior management achievement, it is helpful to compare the scale of the Agency’s operations in 1985 versus today. At September 30, the end of fiscal 1984, NCUA with six regional offices examined annually 10,640 federal charters, and insured 4,722 state charters, a total of 15,362 active credit unions.

Thirty-six years later, September 30, 2020, NCUA oversees 3,213 federal charters and insures

1,920 state charters for a total of 5,133 or a reduction of 10,229 federally insured credit unions. There are three regional offices.

The following two NCUA press releases from 1984 provide budget details and the benefits the savings brought to federal credit unions enabling a 64% reduction in the FCU operating fee scale over these three years.

From an NCUA Press Release, July 25, 1984:

NCUA 1985 Budget Down 4.9%

The National Credit Union Administration board approved a fiscal year 1985 budget that is 4.9% below the Agency’s 1984 budget. This is the third consecutive year in which the budget has been cut. It is he largest reduction to date.

. . . the fiscal year 1985 budget , totaling $32 million, is down $1.7 million or 4.9% from the 1984 budget of $34.7 million

“We won’t forget that credit unions provide the primary source of funding the Agency,” said Board Chairman Edgar Callahan. “Deregulation and decentralization have enabled us to provide better and faster service to credit unions at less cost and to concentrate our efforts on our primary mission—safety and soundness. “

Despite the trimmed down budget, money for training and education has been increased because the Agency believes a better trained examiner force is essential in a deregulated environment. . . The bulk of the increase will go to a training session for new examiners and for the NCUA’s National Examiners’ Meeting in December. This week-long educational session will bring together federal and state credit union examiners. It is the first meeting of its kind. . .

From a September 15, 1984, NCUA press release announcing the reduction in its annual operating fee.

FCU Operating Fee Slashed 24%; Scale Cut 64% Over Three Years

The National Credit Union Administration Board today slashed by 24% the operating fee scale for federal credit unions in 1985, bringing to 64% the total fee scale cuts over the past three years.

The dramatic 24% cut will save federal credit unions more than $4.3 million in 1985 and has saved them more than $15 million since 1983, the first year in the NCUA’s history that the fee scale was cut. . . .

Previously the operating fee scale had risen by 9% in 1980, 8% in 1981, and 7.5% in 1982

“For the third straight year the efficient operations of the Agency have allowed us to put money back into the pockets of federal credit unions,” said NCUA Chairman Callahan. “This is an impressive track record, one that the agency and the entire credit union system can be proud of.. ..”

The NCUA board attributed the Agency’s success in keeping costs down to high productivity by NCUA staff, personnel reductions and a shifting of resources from the central office to the field where they are needed most.

For example, NCUA for the second year in a row has completed an annual examination of each federal credit union, an achievement not seen since the mid-1970’s. Although total agency employment has been reduced by 15%, the number of examiners has increased to an all-time high (369). Getting back to a once-a-year exam cycle exemplifies the Board’s desire to promote safety and soundness while leaving management decisions in the hands of credit unions. . .

In three prior commentaries I have described NCUA’s conservatorship of Municipal Credit Union.

• https://chipfilson.com/2019/12/where-is-the-transparency-for-ncuas-actions-at-municipal-credit-union/
• https://chipfilson.com/2020/02/municipal-credit-union-nyc-reports-30-million-net-income-gain-in-4th-quarter/
• https://chipfilson.com/2020/08/what-do-municipal-credit-union-and-the-u-s-postal-service-have-in-common/

Because of this credit union’s 104-year history and its vital role in the city, I contacted the credit union to update its recovery following the release of the September call report.

NCUA’s director of external affairs sent the following to my request:

November 30, 2020 at 10:49 AM

Hello, Chip. We received the inquiry that you sent to Municipal Credit Union requesting to speak to someone on the credit union’s progress. Please note that notwithstanding key personnel announcements, we do not comment on our efforts or conditions related to conserved credit unions.

Regards,
Joseph B. Adamoli
Office of External Affairs and Communications

My reply:

December 1, 2020

I understand your email responds to the inquiry I sent MCU to update their progress in conservatorship.

I am surprised your office would miss an opportunity to demonstrate NCUA’s leadership by ducking simple questions about running such a large and important $3.7 billion credit union serving New York and its 600, 000 members.

For example, the members and credit union system would be interested in:

• • • • Why has the Agency chosen four different chief executives in the last two years, Kyle Markland being the most recent? Who makes these decisions? What marching orders are they given?
      • Under agency control, why has the credit union reported such wildly fluctuating results, for example a loss of over $120 million in one quarter and an extraordinary ROA in the following two quarters? (https://chipfilson.com/2020/02/municipal-credit-union-nyc-reports-30-million-net-income-gain-in-4th-quarter/)
      • Why have the financial concerns of the 600,000 members not merited a statement about the forward conditions they will have to deal with or better yet, some announcement of confidence about the future?

The credit union’s quarterly call reports are public. Its financial performance is open for anyone to review and comment on. Are the numbers a good sign for members or not?

Given NCUA’s track record for conservatorships, does the turnover of executive leadership signal a lack of momentum for the institution, staff, and its financial plan?

Your policy seems positioned to give the NCUA a blackout period to simply keep the institution out of the members’ sightlines in hope the NCUA can package the credit union in a back-room handoff to a convenient suitor versus working to hand the credit union back to its community.

I urge you to manage this differently. Transparency creates trust. Silence undermines member and public confidence just when regulatory leadership is most needed.

Chip Filson

Why MCU’s Situation Matters

MCU’s September 30, 2020 call report numbers are in many respects very positive.

The credit union grew shares by 27% to $3.5 billion in the past year while adding 27,000 members to total 600,000. Its ROA is 1.18% and a net worth of 4.66%. Delinquency remains very stable with the allowance account funded over 200% of total delinquencies. Its balance sheet holds over $1.7 billion in investments including $800 million in cash.

Chartered in 1916, the cooperative has served five generations of New Yorkers through thick and thin. It is a vital part of the city and state’s credit union system.

Importantly, it is a highly visible example of the broader narrative of the cooperative role for members in times of crisis. Local response to circumstances is the hallmark of a credit union relationship.

NCUA Puts Itself In Charge

When NCUA manages a credit union via conservatorship, it has a heightened responsibility to all the member-owners. To keep the confidence of the credit union system, open communication is necessary.

All NCUA employees are public servants. They are paid entirely from credit union funds. Board members and their politically appointed advisors have a singular responsibility for the wise use of authority and industry resources.

This is especially true in difficult times. For if government is not effective when its role is primary, then the entire industry suffers.

Transparency Essential for Trust

Public dialogue is how trust is created in NCUA oversight. Kyle Markland’s appointment will be the MCU’s fourth chief executive in the past two years, all selected by regulators. In previous commentaries, I described the importance of this selection as follows:

The key success factor (in a conservatorship) is finding and supporting the right turnaround leader. The challenge is simple: Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.

Will NCUA appoint a jackass or a carpenter? Someone to play caretaker until the agency elects a merger partner to resolve a leadership transition? Certainly, there will be vultures a plenty looking to take the “problem” off NCUA’s hands.

The financial numbers reported in conservatorship have fluctuated widely. A loss in one quarter of over $120 million to an extraordinary ROA two quarters later. Members have been kept in the dark about the credit union’s plans.

Decisions with long term consequences are being done in a vacuum. It is not clear who is calling the shots and who is willing to take responsibility.

Where is the Problem?

The Agency’s professional competence is on the line in its takeover of MCU. Many ask how this situation could have occurred if NCUA and state regulators had conducted adequate oversight to begin with.

Is the real problem the credit union or a multi-year failure of examination and supervision?

NCUA’s record in large conservatorships is not encouraging. In the takeover and liquidation of five corporate credit unions in 2010, the Agency’s forecasted costs to credit unions were in error by over $20 billion. In these forced liquidations there is a $6 billion surplus even after NCUA spent almost $4 billion additional expenses overseeing the closures.

Moreover, without timely information, it is hard for the credit union system, vendor partners and employer sponsors to provide support to MCU.

The Need for Leadership

Who at NCUA is willing to take responsibility for informing the credit union community about this critically important situation? It is a time for leadership. One leader stepping up could inspire others to contribute to MCU’s return to its member-owners.

My earlier blog today about Fellowship Credit Union (now BECU) contains an even more powerful message than acorns becoming tall oaks.

It is the example of people willing to put limited resources to the aid of their fellow human beings in difficult circumstances. That is, the many giving others the opportunity at a better life—during the hard times of the depression.

Another Reality: Disposable Members

Last year when walking in downtown Chicago, the following message on the side of a public trash unit caught my eye.

This is unfortunately one of the consequences of NCUA’s current practice in problem credit union resolution. Members with savings receive all their money back at full value. Borrowing members are sold off to the highest bidder. For savers this would be the same as NCUA transferring members’ insured balances to Wells Fargo or a finance company. Sell savings accounts for the best price and then let members work out their future relationship on their own.

Borrowers are the primary reason for a credit union. They provide the most important source of revenue. But in problem situations, the borrowing members’ fate is not NCUA’s concern. Loans are only an asset to be rid of.

This practice was most dramatically illustrated in the NCUA’s February sale of over 4,500 member taxi medallion loans to a hedge fund seeking to build a dominant share of the NYC taxi medallion market.

How This Topic Came Up Last Week

At NCUA’s Wednesday 2021/22 budget hearing, this issue was raised when one of the presenters gratuitously congratulated his organization and the Agency on this action, according to the CU Times.

The reported statements were:

“As NAFCU’s SIF Committee pointed out prior to the sale the unusually large taxi medallion portfolio would strain agency resources and pose a risk to the credit union community so long as it remained under management by the Asset Management and Assistance Center.

“While NAFCU did not anticipate a global pandemic at the time we offered this advice, we believed that retaining the portfolio in the hopes of extracting a higher sales price presented unnecessary risks, and recommended that the agency divest the portfolio at the earliest opportunity so long as it received a fair price.”

No facts were offered to support this position. The idea that the portfolio would “strain agency resources” in a $19 billion dollar fund is nonsensical. The agency two years earlier had expensed all the estimated loss–at a magnitude 4 times ($750 million) the last reported deficits ($150 million) in conservatorship.

The return on this additional cash in the NCUSIF is under 10 basis points.

Why this superfluous statement was made in a budget hearing is unclear–a crude attempt at sucking up to the Agency or poking a sharp stick in the eye of a group that challenged the sale. Whatever the reason, it not only undercuts the credibility of the presenter, but more critically it supports the unfortunate Agency practice that member borrowers are not NCUA’s responsibility, just savers.

Hiding the Truth on the Taxi Medallions

NCUA has repeatedly refused to present any details that would support its sale as in the best interests of the members. Or even the best financial outcome for the NCUSIF.

At least three organizations requested FOIA information on the sale; all denied. Some of the sale details were already published in a Feb. 20, 2020 WSJ story on the hedge fund’s purchase.

The Journal reported the price of $350 million for a portfolio of 3,000 New York medallions, 900 Chicago medallions, 500 Philadelphia medallions and 100 from other cities.

This is an average loan value of $77,800 each, all secured by medallions. An estimate of the average book value of these loans is the purchase price of $350 million plus the loss NCUA says it has taken on the portfolio of $760 million. These numbers combined total $11 billion and suggest an average book value of $245 thousand per loan. The cash received would be a payment of 31 cents per loan dollar.

What’s Wrong with Cashing Out?

The challenges of the New York taxi medallion market continue to be tracked. One example is the 2015-2020 chart below which shows the rider volumes as the uber/lyft new entrants disrupted the taxi industry. So, wasn’t 31 cents better than holding on? That is the question which NCUA and the presenter have failed to offer any factual information.

For some the chart may be a sufficient justification forgetting the fundamental rule of markets, what goes up must come down and vice versa. Cashing out at the bottom is generally the highest cost strategy—just remember the five corporate liquidations, all supposedly insolvent, whose estates have generated a surplus of over $6 billion so far.

Better options for members are what the Taxi association, CUNA and others offered to present to NCUA which refused to consider all offers. Medallion drivers, one of the most diverse group of credit union members, include many individual entrepreneurs. They were denied any ability to negotiate their own future. The sweat equity that they hoped to build was turned over to a firm that specialize in profiting from others in financial difficulty.

One Easy Solution for a Win-Win

Instead of turning its back on members striving to realize the American dream through their own labor, what if the agency had offered to discount the members’ loans to the same level that the hedge fund bought them? Furthermore, these rewrites could include a contingency that if the borrower was able to sell the medallion for more in the future, the gain could be split between the borrower and the fund.

More proposals for assistance continue to be drawn up today by the alliance and New York city leaders. Some taxi owners were able to receive help from financial programs in the CARES act. But NCUA washed its hands and walked away from the members in trouble as others attempted to find solutions.

NCUA’s lack of transparency suggests there is much to hide in its failed supervision of the taxi medallion situation and sale. The agency used money due credit unions from the TCCUSF surplus to expense $750 million to cover up their inability to carry out basic responsibilities for problem supervision and resolution.

The most unfortunate aspect of the taxi medallion sale was that it proved again that NCUA views credit union borrowers as disposable. This is exactly the opposite of the founding spirit of the Fellowship CU and the purpose for which all credit unions were formed.

December 7^th is also a day that no one will forget because it brought America into WWII. A basic code of honor in the US military is that no one gets left behind whether as POWs or MIAs. Decades, even generations later, the US government sends teams to recover the remains of missing from Korea to Vietnam and other places of combat. No one is forgotten, whatever the circumstances.

That is the heart of the American democratic commitment to each other. It’s the motivation for Fellowship Credit Union, begun this day four generations ago.

Isn’t it time NCUA followed this same principle when performing its responsibilities?

An easy but critical first step for a new NCUA board for insight into the agency would be to change the current auditor, KPMG, of its three credit union financed funds. This is normal good business practice as NCUA documents in its examination recommendations cited below.

It would bring a fresh set of eyes and objective rigor to a series of events such as the ambiguities in managing the corporate AME assets and the inexplicable annual accounting for loss reserves in the NCUSIF.

It would also bring much needed review for how the Inspector General’s office performs both its internal and external audit oversight.

Finally, it would replace a firm whose professional integrity and competence have been publicly and repeatedly called to account in the past three years by both regulators and the financial press.

KPMG’s Recent Press Reports

For several years the business press has reported on the professional and ethical failures at KPMG. The following are a few of the public stories about events from 2016 through this year.

1. The KPMG cheating scandal was much more widespread than originally thought

Jun 18, 2019 — A $50 million fine against KPMG LLP for its use of stolen regulatory information to cheat on audit inspections wasn’t a surprise: The Wall Street Journal warned last week that the Securities and Exchange Commission was ready to impose such a move, and the scandal had been known about for more than a year.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-kpmg-cheating-scandal-was-much-more-widespread-than-originally-thought-2019-06-18

2. KPMG reveals eight audit clients collapsed

Updated Feb 18, 2020 

KPMG has revealed it failed to flag problems with the financial statements of two of the eight collapsed listed companies it audited over the last 10 years.

https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/kpmg-reveals-that-eight-audit-clients-collapsed-20200203-p53x6l

3. Accounting Watchdog Finds Ongoing Problems at KPMG

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) said half of the 52 audits it inspected from top accounting firm KPMG were seriously deficient and KPMG was not as committed to quality as the accountancy claimed.

“In 26 audits, certain of these deficiencies were of such significance that it appeared to the inspection team that the firm, at the time it issued its audit report, had not obtained sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support its opinion,” the PCAOB said in its report.

The accounting watchdog also released a revised inspection report for 2016 that found deficiencies in 22 of 51 engagements.

Some of the most common deficiencies occurred in the area of revenue and included failures to sufficiently test the design or effectiveness of controls.

https://www.cfo.com/auditing/2019/01/accounting-watchdog-finds-ongoing-problems-at-kpmg/

4. SEC Charges Three Former KPMG Audit Partners for Exam Sharing Misconduct

Washington D.C., May 18, 2020 

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced settled charges against three former KPMG LLP audit partners for improperly sharing answers to internal training exams and for subsequent wrongdoing during an investigation of exam sharing misconduct at the firm. The SEC previously charged KPMG with violations concerning the exam sharing misconduct, as well as for altering past audit work after receiving stolen information about inspections that would be conducted by the PCAOB.

An NCUA Examination Comment On External Auditing

Following is an excerpt of standard wording NCUA provided one  credit union’s supervisory committee about managing their external audit process: (emphasis added)

Examiner’s Observation: As standard exam procedure, we conducted a meeting with the supervisory committee chair during this year’s examination. We inquired about the process of soliciting bids from audit firms prior to the end of the engagement period, to select the audit firm for the next engagement period. Our discussions with the supervisory committee and review of policies and procedures noted that there is no documented bidding process and that the audit committee has not solicited bids since 2010.

It also appears that the audit committee had no defined timeline as to when they would solicit bids in the future. While specific limits are not required, recent accounting and auditing scandals highlight the importance of rotating audit firms periodically. Otherwise, auditors and clients could loose independence and overlook areas of concern.

Prudent and standard business practices recommend the development of written processes and procedures, outlining the steps the supervisory committee needs to follow when engaging an audit firm to complete the annual audit. The supervisory committee needs to follow the guidelines when soliciting and reviewing bids from audit firms.

We recommend the supervisory committee develop, approve, and implement written procedures for reviewing proposals for the annual audit. Furthermore, the audit committee must understand and implement the procedures as intended, as this is among the most important functions of the committee. It is imperative the supervisory committee maintain documentation to support their review and selection of the audit firm. Furthermore, we recommend that management and the board consider periodically rotating audit firms. It is important to note we are not taking exception to or criticizing the quality of the annual audit report or the audit firm.

An Example of a Board Policy Statement of a Co-op’s Audit Process

Effective audit controls include review as to whether internal and external audits are effective.

• • The Board of Directors and Executive Management of XYZ expect to be apprised of the condition of the organization, including the system of internal controls.
  • On an annual basis the Board of Directors is asked to approve the Risk Based Audit Plan. The Audit Plan describes the internal and external audits designed to prove the adequacy and effectiveness of internal controls and policy, as directed by the Board of Directors and Executive Management of XYZ.

Board Action Required

This brief policy statement should be the starting point for a new NCUA Board to better monitor and understand the effectiveness of the Agency’s management. It is what the agency expects of credit unions. Should it not hold itself to the same standard?

At the November NCUA board meeting, two members responding to the NCUSIF update made “the sky is falling” projections about whether the fund will have adequate resources in 2021.

One board member confidently predicted that the assessment of a premium is not a question of if, but when.

Neither forecast was supported by factual analysis.

Relevant Facts

Before offering a simple, immediate solution to these future seers’ concerns it is important to affirm basic facts about the NCUSIF’s financial strength and record.

• As reported by Chairman Hood to Congress the fund’s NOL is 1.32, which is above the legal cap of 1.3%. Anytime the fund exceeds this cap, a premium cannot be charged.
• The current NOL is 12 basis points above the 1.20 floor below which a restoration plan must be prepared. This is a financial margin of almost $2 billion.
• In the last 12 years of operations, the total insurance losses for the entire period Is $1.887 BN or less than the current NOL “surplus” margin.
• NCUA’s transfer of its fixed operating expenses to the NCUSIF via the overhead transfer rate (OTR) in this same 12 years is $1.968 BN or more than the total insurance losses.
• NCUSIF’s operating expenses have grown at a CAGR of 8.06% versus the growth of insured shares of only 5.6% in this time span. It is this fixed operating expense, not insurance losses, that eat up the fund’s revenue.
• The fund’s average insurance 12-year loss is 1.727 of insured savings. This includes the entire years of the Great Recession. The current 12 basis point NOL margin is seven times (700%) this average annual rate of loss.
• The September 2020 NCUSIF financials show an allowance reserve already funded for both general and specific losses. Moreover, the total assets of all code 4 and 5 credit unions is only .64% of the industry’s assets, that is less than 1%. This is the lowest level in the past decade.

Full details of the NCUSIF’s operations can be found on this spread sheet.

2019 NCUSIF Performance Spreadsheet_AJ1

 

The NCUSIF 1% semi-annual deposit “true up” underwriting means the NCUSIF is entirely countercyclical in its structure. The NOL range of 10 basis points(1.20 to 1.30) provides flexibility no matter the uncertainties that might occur. It is the ever-increasing fixed expense charged the NCUSIF in the OTR, not the variable insurance losses, that take the majority of NCUSIF income.

The fund’s financial architecture has proven its resilience since 1984 a period of time in which the FDIC has gone negative three times. The FSLIC failed and was merged into the FDIC in the 1990’s. In spite of these failures, the FDIC is still based on the same premium financial model that has led to its repeated failure.

A Ready, Easy Source of Additional Revenue-Not Premiums

As of September 30, the market value of the NCUSIF investment portfolio exceeded its book value by $586 million. This is due to the precipitous fall in interest rates engineered by the Federal Reserve at the beginning of March responding to the pandemic and economic shut down.

By selling these securities and staying short, the fund would book immediate revenue in the hundreds of millions, become more liquid and be better positioned for the inevitable rise in rates from present historic lows.

This market premium disappears if the securities are held to maturity. The time to realize this gain is now. It will add immediately to equity if the board truly believes the NCUSIF must sustain an NOL above 1.3. A premium cannot be levied if the NOL is above 1.3%

But what about the future revenue possibly foregone when the bonds are sold and reinvested at today’s lower rates? That is a contingency easily modeled, but ultimately relies on the assumptions made about how long the current rate environment is likely to continue.

The NCUSIF reported the following fixed rate investments by the NCUSIF in September:

Term   Rate
4 yrs    .20%
5 yrs    .27%
6 yrs    .36%
7 yrs     .45%

Is there any CFO or CEO who would make investments for their credit union at these terms and fixed rates into the future? While no one knows the future, the preponderance of experience suggests that it will take only one move by the Fed from its current 0-25 bps overnight range, to a first step raising it to 25-50 bps, for all of these investments to be underwater, that is less than book value.

Yes, there is a risk of some foregone revenue next year, but a reasonable forecast suggests that a strong recovery will bring with it higher rates. And if the opposite happens and economic disaster occurs, then the liquidity would be readily available.

The Action Needed and the Precedent

If the NCUA board decides to keep the NOL above the 1.3% current cap, then sell some of its investments, take the gains and recognize the revenue now. When rates rise, the market premium goes away. This is an opportunity that will decline if not disappear in the not-too-distant future.

The precedent is 2008 when the NCUSIF sold longer term securities to prepare for the potential contingencies brought by the Great Recession. This boosted income so that no premium was necessary with the fund reporting net income of $24 million and an NOL of 1.26.

In an October 6, 2015 CU Times op ed, then new board member McWatters presented his approach to credit union regulation. He resigned his board seat last Friday. Below are selected verbatim excerpts of his original policy priorities that I believe should stand the test of time and party.

Credit unions are best served by having a regulator that understands the not-for-profit, cooperative business model. . .

Rick Based Capital Rule

Last week, by a bipartisan margin of 50-9, the House Financial Services Committee sent an undeniable message to the NCUA: Take more time to review the law, assess the need for additional regulation, evaluate alternatives and consider the real impact now and into the future before moving ahead with the Risk-Based Capital 2 final rule.

This is a message I welcomed and championed in my written dissent (available on the agency’s website) to the issuance by the agency of its proposed RBC2 rule last January as contrary to a plain reading of the Federal Credit Union Act.

Regulatory Burden

I think the agency would do well to heed this message for other major regulatory issues as well, most notably how the agency deals with the growing regulatory burden confronting credit unions, particularly small credit unions. The increasing number, scope and costs associated with regulatory requirements, not just from the NCUA but from all agencies, that credit unions must manage is a concern that the NCUA must take more seriously and devote more resources toward addressing in a meaningful way. , ,

Fraud Losses Cost to NCUSIF

We should also more rigorously address the dramatic losses, year in and year out, to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund caused by fraudulent activity committed by a limited number of bad actors within the credit union community. . .

Editorial note: All these issues are still live in the industry today.

To ensure a safe Thanksgiving, my wife and I lined up Friday night for our Covid tests at the county recreation center. The test was free. The line took about an hour. Everyone stood six feet apart as the temperature got cooler as night came.

We were given clipboards to complete our registration—name, email, age, race. One of the staff helping with sign ins came by to ask the obligatory questions. Have you had any Covid symptoms? Been around anyone who has tested positive?

It was the last question that was memorable, however. She qualified it by saying “I think I know the answer, but I have to ask anyway. Are you pregnant?”

An NCUA Exam Risk Rating

The predictable routine of bureaucracy is an important factor in performance. We rely on formulaic responses especially by those in authority. But it can also result in actions that contradict common sense.

In a conversation with a CEO about how to respond to his most recent exam, this same anomaly was present.

The credit union has been a CAMEL 1 for almost two decades. It has navigated the pandemic with improving performance. Liquidity is 500% the policy minimum, delinquency is down and most loans in forbearance are back making payments. ROA and net worth are way above peer averages. A consistent track record of exceptional performance in the present and the past, through thick and thin.

So, I asked given these documented facts why the risk rating for “credit” and “liquidity” were judged “moderate” versus the “low” ranking on every other factor. The CEO’s observation was “It feels like we are being punished for what could happen in the future.”

The Culture of Bureaucracy

This is the difficulty with bureaucratic culture. When facts don’t fit a program’s priorities, the instinct is to assert future scenarios that do. This tendency is not limited to examiners. Listening to last week’s NCUA board meeting, two members confidently predicted the future financial downturn of credit unions in 2021 and with it, the necessity of collecting more money for the NCUSIF. This was after the staff updated the distribution of CAMEL ratings that showed the continuing reduction in code 4 and 5 classifications in both total assets and number of credit unions.

Facts will not deter the inevitable government instinct to always seek more money. This prediction of future NCUSIF premiums reflects a bureaucratic mindset similar to asking all males if they are pregnant.

After getting our Covid tests, we walked out by the admin line and everyone wished me a safe pregnancy. For I had answered yes to the question. We all enjoyed the humor of this bureaucratic incongruity.

Common sense, humor and a negative test. Good ingredients for a safe 2020 Thanksgiving. For it is my hunch that 2021 could be the best year credit unions and their members have ever enjoyed.