Category: NCUA

Posted on

Credit Union Mergers: A Game without Rules

 

Part III

Previous parts I and II have provided a factual review how FCCU’s CEO and board chair diverted $12 million to their control via a new organization when merging the credit union.  While this example is discouraging, it is symptomatic of a much broader challenge for credit unions.

A Game Without Rules

The FCCU/Valley Strong merger is a current and common example of the private, insider deal making around mergers of successful, long serving institutions.   The CEO’s and boards arranging  these transactions put their self-interest and ambitions ahead of their member owners.  Their actions are covered with rhetorical reasons about scale, technology investments and competition threats.

CEO Duffy’s skill at deflecting any criticism is shown by how he positions those  whose official duty and/or fiduciary roles would be to protect and ensure the members’ best interests to support his action.

His board of five, on which he sits, had to approve the merger.  They are all given subsequent sinecures.  The senior staff who might have aspired to succeed in leadership is guaranteed bonuses and jobs in the continuing firm-at higher salaries and lesser responsibility (legacy ambassador vs COO).   The lawyers and accountants dutifully earn their fees for blessing the numbers and  transactions.  Like the trade associations, no one wants to lose a paying client.

And those in the community who lost their home- grown 66-year old cooperative, are not going to bite the hand that gave them an occasional handout (usually $1,000) or annual political  donation.

Two Members Said:  The Emperor Has No Clothes

To oppose someone in authority with literally millions in resources to fight back requires persons with more than insight, it takes unusual courage.

This merger confirms the modern day reality of Hans Christian Andersen’s most memorable fairy tale.   And the tale’s relevance is even more appropriate as shown by newspaper accounts of “banker” Duffy’s recent Stocksonian award. Both “leads” open by describing his  professional appearance, “looking dapper in a gray, tartan-style suit and stripped red bow tie.”

But just as in the fairy tale, the two members saw the CEO’s plan had no substance.  And they said so out loud, so all could see.  But no one wanted to note the obvious.  Here are their names, excerpts of some of their concerns, comments and questions as recorded in the CU Today story from NCUA’s website.

A  FCCU member,  Larry Matulich,  posted his objection on NCUA’s website in part as follows:

I am against the merger for several reasons.  I feel we must protect the financial stability of our local credit union. The loan to asset ratio of Valley Strong is 3 times the loans to total assets, while FCCU is only 20% of our loans to assets.  We do not need their loans, but they do need our assets.   Let’s protect  our money and keep it here in San Joaquin County.  Frankly the real strong credit union is not Valley Strong, but our FCCU. . .

A second member Frederick Butterworth posted in part:

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 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 sould be distributed to the members.  I’ve written twice asking for the rationale for given away $10 million.  They have failed to answer me.  . . The so-called FCCU2 Foundation was created less than two months ago setting uup Duffy in his new give-away-our-asseets role. . .

Both saw that the rhetoric promoting the event was not supported by the facts.  Other employees and members knew these realities, but Duffy managed to outmaneuver any scrutiny, even by the regulators.

Regulatory Neglect Is Not Benign

This week NCUA announced the banning of a former president/CEO from forever participating in the affairs of a federally insured financial institution. This CEO’s misdeed was that between 2018 and 2020 she used the credit union’s credit card for personal purchases “totaling more than $12,000.”

In FCCU2’s foundation setup, the diversion for personal use was first announced as $10 million. But when the deed was finally reported to the IRS, an additional $2.0 million was added to total $12 million.

When asked, NCUA’s anonymous defense in the  CU Today story was this transfer is “a business decision left up to the credit union’s board of directors.” And further on, “ultimately in a voluntary merger (this action) is up to the members themselves.” When asked to explain its oversight, NCUA shows a regulatory middle finger to every FCCU member by stating “86% voted in favor of the merger.”

Moreover this reference to  a supposedly democratic process demonstrates how disconnected from on the ground realities NCUA leadership is.

Duffy has been politically adroit placing the regulators between himself  and his self-dealing with the members’ money.  “Duffy said neither the NCUA nor the DFI raised any red flags over the transfer of the $10 million to the foundation.  There was nothing to question.” For NCUA to followup now, it would first have to investigate itself-what it already knew.  An internal review  few organization’s leaders are capable of doing.  Rather it may require a congressional hearing or a CNN story.

It was NCUA itself that described multiple situations of self dealing and failure of fiduciary responsibility by boards and CEO’s in approving its merger regulation.  If either NCUA or DFI had bothered to look under the covers, it would find this merger violated one of the oldest rule on the books: thou shalt not steal.

Consequences and a Solution

Credit unions compete in a capitalistic system described by the fictional character Gorden Gekko as fueled by self-interest: “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. It captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, for knowledge has marked the upsurge of mankind.”

The temptations are all around, even for member-owned coops.

At all levels of this process, the members’ trust and confidence have been violated.  In so doing, the cooperative reputation of thousands of credit unions that serve their members every day with commitment and purpose is stained.

Instead of stockpiling excess capital as done by FCCU, hundreds of credit unions pay special dividends explaining,” Our annual giveback bonus is what differentiates us from a typical bank.”

The system’s overall safety and soundness is lessened when more eggs are put into a single basket.

Everyone connected to this transaction loses something. The 29,000 members, their credit union; the city of Stockton a 66-year long relationship with a locally-owned financial cooperative.

Valley Strong’s senior management and Board, seduced by the prospect of adding $634 million in assets and free capital of $100 million, are now struggling when the tide of free money went away.  They thought the only cost would be several years FCCU executive salaries and $2.5 million in donations to the Duffy fund.  But nothing is free in life.  Valley Strong’s CEO,  will now have to knuckle down and run a credit union versus buying up others’ assets.

Credit unions’ public reputation as member-first organizations is contradicted by these facts. And the regulators’ conduct exposed as supervisors who “have no clothes.”

Duffy’s endgame benefitted him and some of his closest enablers.  But they will learn giving away other people’s money is a losing game when the funding drys up and the lights turned off.

Is There A Cure?

The only bright light in this case are the two members who spoke up with the truth about the event.  The solutions must empower the members with information and total transparency so that they are not just mere bystanders.

The single most important reform that would change the whole process, is to require that a minimum of 25% (or more) of members must vote in any election to end a sound credit union’s charter.

Today a minority, usually in the single digits, bother to vote.  And a smaller minority actually approve  charter surrender.  In a democratic process, presumably a majority should approve transferring their collective wealth to another party.  But in credit unions a minority of members, and and even smaller group can approve 100% or total transfer of value for everyone.

According the FCCU’s certification of the vote sent to NCUA, only 9% (2,680) of the 29,672 members voted.  Of this amount just 7.7% of all members supported giving up the charter.  Compare this with NCUA’s characterization of 86% of voters “in favor of the merger.”

Transparency and Options Create a Truly Free Market

First, much fuller disclosures should be mandatory.  All of the documents required by NCUA in their review should be part of the public record for every member to see.  All contracts for future service for any employee or board member should be public.  If an FCU is involved, they should be required to disclose the same information as a SCU files in the IRS 990.

Second, all credit union members should have a choice to take their pro-rata share of accumulated capital and close their account if the merger is approved.

Third, once the disclosures are public, members should have the opportunity to seek proposals from other credit unions who would be willing to make better offers.

Fourth,  merger agreements should include specific performance objectives so members can track whether the value promised has in fact been delivered.  For example lower operating expenses, increased loan or savings opportunities, enhanced delivery options and their usage.

Fifth, the board of the continuing credit union should be required to report to all members at the annual meeting the impact of the merger on the institution after the first 12 and 24 months.

Mergers today are the wild west of credit union activity.  They are marketed by intermediaries offering to facilitate the benefits for the selling institution and the niceties of the regulatory process–for a share of the action.

Duffy’s example is not an exception, albeit the foundation was a unique creation. Rather with no rules, everyone feels entitled to whatever they can get.

In a true market this insider dealing would not happen.  For example when credit unions buy banks, the deal is often very public and the benefits to the bank’s owners very clear.

Just this week Beacon Credit Union announced that it planned to acquire Mid-Southern Savings bank for $45.1 million in cash.  The bank’s total capital at third quarter 2023 was $28.9 million for a sale premium of 150% of book for all the bank’s owners.

In the official Member Notice Duffy and the FCCU board sent to members announcing the mrger, the headline under the credit union’s name reads: Better than a Bank.  Except when it comes to selling out the charter and all capital in return for nothing but promises and future charity.

Posted on

The Pied Piper of Stockton (Part II)

This is a three-part look back of a January 26, 2022  article on the transfer of $10 million of members’ capital to a non profit  by the CEO and Chair as a result of merging Finance Center Credit Union.

Part I  summarized the previous events and articles offering principals’ explanations.

Part II below presents data subsequent to the merger from the Foundation and CEO Duffy’s activities through January 2024.

Part III will address what happens now?

Part II: Updating the FCCU2 Story To the Present

How is the newly expanded Valley Strong Credit Union doing?  After the first full year post-merger, (ending December 2022) the credit union was going gangbusters.   However as of September 2023, the same indicators suggest the credit union has hit a  brick wall.

Ratio/ Measure     December 22    Dec ’23

Loan growth %            49.1%                 -6.6%

Share growth                8.7%                      1.5%

Members                     16.4%                       6.8%

Total Assets                 21.3%                    -3.8%

Net Income                 (46.0%)                   8.6%

ROA                                 .44%                         .44%

Net Worth                       8.1%                       8.5%

Loan Originations         58.5%                (51.4%)

Delinquency                     1.1%                        1.2%

Net C-O loans              $25.4 M              $68.8 M

# employees-FTE            625                       570

Two notes from 4th Quarter numbers.  The credit union reported a non-operating gain of $15.2 million or 84% of total net income on which ROA is computed.

The compound four year CAGR annual ROA growth (2019-2023) is negative 18.9.  In the same period the annual CAGR for average salaries and benefits grew 12.2% per year.

The two years’ trends show a dramatic slowdown in key balance sheet accounts,  rising loan charge offs and a staff reduction of 50 employees.  Mergers can create an initial  “sugar-high” growth appearance, but sustainability depends on a firm’s ability to  develop relationships, that is grow organically.   How FCCU members view their new credit union is hard to discern from this macro data.

 The Data from IRS Filings

The 990 IRS non profit filings for FCCU2 and Valley Strong (both  for 2022) provide important data.

From Valley’s 990, we learn that all of the senior FCCU employees listed in the Member Notice, remain employees and qualified for their $800,000 in total 2021 merger bonuses. Their total  compensation for 2022 is listed as :

Michael Duffy, EVP Chief Advocacy Officer    $1,088.045.

Nora Stroh, Legacy Ambassador  $361,814

Steve  Leiga, VP Accounting   $354,748

David Rainwater, Sr. Project Mgr   $362,747

Amanda Verstl, HR manager   $353,542

The data is from Valley Strong’s 2022 Schedule J partially shown below.

Total compensation of the five senior FCCU executives on this schedule is $2, 521, 696.

The FCCU2 IRS Information-A $2.0 Million Bonus Contribution

The FCCU2 foundation’s 990 for 2022  provides information about the transfer and use of FCCU members’ funds from the merger.

  • The most stunning fact is that the Fund did not receive the $10 million listed in the official Member Notice. Rather the total sent to the foundation  in 2021 was for $11,959,462 or almost $2.0 million more than disclosed to and voted on by members.

No explanation is provided where these additional funds came from? Why were they taken from members or not transferred to Valley Strong as part of the equity transfer? Who approved this $2.0 million additional amount? What was NCUA’s role?

  • In the same 2022 IRS filing we learn:
    • The Foundation has changed its name to The 54 Fund.  No public explanation of the reason can be found in any media.
    • The address is no longer at the former credit union’s office but in the building below, that is 2616 Pacific Avenue #4081. It is the local post box not an office.

  • The new foundation lists no website address or other contact information.  When I emailed Foundation director Steve Liega on the IRS return, I received no reply.  When dialing the phone number, it is “not in service.”

  • We do see the $250,000 donation listed in Valley Strong’s contributions, its largest single grant.

We also learn all of the initial funds were invested in a firm called the Dana Group.  What does this have to do with credit unions or prudent investing?

After adding  $2.0 million more of members’ funds, all these registration/location changes further remove the Foundation from public scrutiny and accountability. The only  information available is from the IRS 990 filed in October 2023, ten months after year-end.

In  contrast credit union call reports are public and received quarterly.  Annual  state and federal exams validate reported data. The 990 provides additional information on donations, political contributions and executive salaries.  In contrast, the financial details of the new 54 Fund are available once per year and then ten months after year end.

The 54 Fund Spent $0.38 for Each $1.0 Donated

Even though limited, the Foundation’s first full year report gives insight how it manages its activities.

Total revenue was $368,658  including the $250,000 donation from Valley Strong.   Total operating expenses were $105,858. Charitable donations were $272,479.  For every $1 in donations, the Fund spent another $.38 on operating expenses.

The $272,479 donations were distributed in 86 grants ranging in size from $1,000 (45) to three at $25,000 each.  The recipients include churches/temples of all denominations, multiple private and public schools, private social agencies, and the United Way of San Joaquin. The 54 Fund at 2022 yearend had more assets than at the beginning ($11.974 vs $12.058 million)

The purpose stated for all  grants is “general support.” Other than seven over $10,000, the much smaller 79 amounts might be characterized by the term, “walking around money.”

Of the nine 54 Fund directors chosen by Duffy, four are former senior FCCU employees, now at Valley Strong.  In 2022, all five former senior FCCU executives listed in the Member Notice received much greater annual compensation from Valley Strong  than the Fund’s $272,492 in total donations to help its 29,000 former members.  Is it just proving the adage “charity starts at home?”  Were these five positions  and pay, or others,  “at will” or negotiated in contracts?  Did the executives guarantee their success and not member benefits?

Three other 54 Fund directors are former FCCU board members including the  Chair Manual Lopez. Another director is Ed Figeroa, listed as Executive Director, who received a salary  of $46,667.  Figeroa had recently retired as CEO of St. Mary’s Dining Room. In 2020 the charity received a $100,000 donation from FFCU as part of the credit union’s Stockton Strong donation (see video from Part I).

By comparison, Valley Strong CU made  total 501 C3 contributions in 2022 over $1.1 million including  $250K to the 54 Fund.  These grants were made without the need for a foundation.

As a tax exempt organization there is no purpose for a credit union to establish a separate foundation to  expense grants.   This raises the question of motivation.  Why was a new foundation needed “to advance and support the needs of the members”-Duffy’s characterization in Part I.

The “Tragedy of the Commons”

Why was the  FCCU2 foundation established just a month before the merger announcement when it was unnecessary for charitable grants in the credit union’s previous 65 years of operations? Or at Valley Strong now?

The separate foundation registered by CEO Duffy (along with  his former employees and board directors) keeps total control  of the  funds by Duffy.  If the money had been returned to  the members  or transferred to Valley Strong, the ability to continue to cultivate an image as a civic patron would not be under Duffy’s control.  This transfer of $12 million  “privatized” members’ common wealth.

The  54 Foundation was the vehicle used to promote the personal philanthropic reputation of the  FCCU CEO once he left his leadership role.  His previous political and public grants activity had been funded from his credit union’s resources.  He needed a new funding source.

Two examples of this reputation motivation are in recent articles. In January 2024 Michael Duffy was selected as Stockton’s 69th Stocktonian of the year.  The story begins:

“Dressed in a gray plaid suit and a red striped bow tie, the former president and CEO of the Financial Center Credit Union became the 69th person to receive the award for service and positive impact on the city.”  The paper provided a series of pictures of the event. 

The article cited Duffy’s past as CEO of FCCU (a responsibility he had exited 28 months earlier) and his position at Valley Strong. There is no reference to Valley Strong’s recent charity or the Foundation as the source of Duffy’s donations.  But he gladly accepts the praise and publicity for giving away a tiny fraction of the $12.0 million set aside from the  former FCCU members’ collective savings.

A longer article reporting the same award was published by the Stocksonian on January 29, Banker Michael  Duffy Surprised by selection as Stocksonian of the Year.

He is now described as a “banker” a higher calling apparently than a former credit union CEO.

He is quoted in the article saying: “I love Stockton, and so I find every which way to be a part of Stockton,” Duffy said. “If it’s from the north, to the south, the east, the west, the tiny neighborhoods, the big events, the very small not-for-profits, the very big ones, if I can be there enjoying this city with everybody I’m there.”

Neither article notes that after gaining his living for 28 years from the credit union, he and his board failed to seek a successor to lead the city’s 66-year old and largest local cooperative financial firm. That would be  standard industry best practice when CEO’s decide to leave.  It is also a fiduciary duty of the Board of directors.

This is a recent case  of how CEO succession normally proceeds, especially for financially strong credit unions. FCCU’s capital ratio of 16% was twice the ratio of Valley Strong.

But that process would mean Duffy would be out of a job which had been paying  him over $1.0 million per year. And he would no longer have access to members’ funds to show his civic “love.”

A Financial Pied Piper Leads Members and Resources to Bakersfield

The term Pied Piper refers to a person who is able to charm or lure others through the use of their skills and ability to manipulate them for their own gain.

Instead of sustaining the credit union  to serve its founding community, Duffy engineered the transfer of 29,000 Stockton’s members’ $635 million locally owned assets and their $110 million accumulated capital.  A new board and executive team 250 miles away now controls how these resources will be used.

When initiating this change of control to a credit union with no local  roots,  Duffy set aside $12 million of his members’ surplus for his direct control in the 54 Fund.

He turned the Robin Hood model of wealth distribution into a financial round robin game.  He first retains money, not using it for member benefits, to build reserves more than 100% higher than peers. From this extraordinary capital surplus, he directs $12 million into the new organization he controls.  To justify this diversion,  he says it to help those from whom he withheld the earnings benefit in the first place.

When CEO, Duffy short-changed members’ returns  by building capital ratios twice the industry average.  He turns to this same source for the 54 Foundation funds. Truly a double blow for those who entrusted their financial futures to his credit union leadership.

In Part III I will discuss what happens next.  And share the names and writings of two persons who saw through this whole financial flim flam from the start.

(Editor’s note:  Valley Strong data for December 2023 updated on February 3, 2024)

Posted on

NCUA’s Disdain for Credit Union Democracy

Let’s get right to the point.  NCUA does not believe in member democracy, member rights or any aspect of owner-member control.

The cooperative model capitalizes on the character of its member-owners who join to help each other attain a better economic status. But that is not NCUA’s belief.  For them, members are merely customers. NCUA’s primary duty is regulatory compliance, not enhancing the owner’s role. The democratic structure of one member one vote in elections is a theory rarely practiced. And its practice has nothing to do with the regulator’s oversight.

There are numerous examples of not just NCUA indifference, but outright rejection of requests to protect the property and process rights of member owners.  The examples are rampant in three areas:  the administration of mergers, the oversight of bylaw requirements/amendments framing director fiduciary conduct, and when asserting absolute, unaccountable and unexplained regulatory actions to close member owned institutions.

Unconstrained-Unexplained Closures

Following are two examples this month of NCUA forcing a merger without a member vote or any form of due process, and just vague wording: “The conditions of the merger met regulatory provisions that allowed for a waiver of the membership vote.” No facts to justify this cancellation of $32.1 million Gabriels Community CU charter.

A second example is cited again by CU Times:  “An NCUA spokesperson said the $2.9 million Waconized Federal Credit Union in Waco, Texas was given the OK to merge with the $16.7 million 1st University Credit Union, also based in Waco. The consolidation was allowed in accordance with NCUA Rules and Regulations, Part 708(b), which gives the federal agency the authority to permit a merger without a member vote under certain circumstances.”

This arbitrary, unexplained use of NCUA authority is not new.   In a February 26, 2022 post, the End of Kappa Alpha PSI  (occurring in 2010), I provide the detail of NCUA’s liquidation while an appeal was pending of this black fraternity’s credit union.

This is not conduct limited to times of crisis. I list many other situations where NCUA arbitrarily removed management, forced mergers or performed instant liquidations without due process as recently as May 2020. In a single example from April 2016 the agency summarily liquidated six credit unions that reported collective net worth of 17.6% without any conservatorship or other steps required by its own rules.

At the time of most critical and consequential regulatory action, the agency rebuffs any explanations. All of the circumstances are kept behind closed doors: “we do not comment on our efforts or conditions related to conserved (or troubled) credit unions” is the standard defense.

At the moment the member-owners’ role is negated, the NCUA goes mum. Accountable to no one.  As the two most recent examples occurred within a week of December yearend, it is easy to surmise why these silent closures were not revealed then.  If done after yearend, a call report disclosing their financial condition would have to be filed.  Such a final accounting, if available, would illuminate not a credit union collapse, but  a failure of effective examination and supervisory oversight.

The continuing danger of these unopposed regulatory precedents is that they encourage further use of arbitrary power.  Credit unions see this.  Examiners will take their cues to assert their unchecked authority.  Recommendations (DORs)  wlll order credit unions to sell millions in underwater investments or borrow unneeded loans solely to reduce modeled interest rate risk will be issued.  The threat of further action and CAMELS downgrades is all that is needed to force immediate, costly options that reduce member capital.

Lack of regulatory transparency at  critical points in any credit union’s circumstances perpetuates unchecked and unaccountable regulatory power.  Secret actions always hovering over credit unions in difficulty or who might otherwise oppose NCUA’s findings.

NCUA Suppression of Member Board Participation

 

On May 18, 2021, I filed 21-FOI-00083 “for the requests, communications, and NCUA’s approval or denial of all federal credit unions over $5 billion in assets that have requested to change their  standard bylaw for nominations for directors by petition.”

Only two FCU’s have done this: Navy FCU and Penfed.   Navy had filed two comment letters in 2004 and 2005 suggesting changes in the standard bylaw requirements.  However, it was not until September 11, 2019, that the Director of CURE approved these requested changes which:

  • Raised the requirement for members to call a special meeting to 1,000 members or one fifth of one percent of total membership, whichever is greater.
  • Raised the requirement for nominations by petition to the greater of 1,000 members of one-fifth of one percent of the total membership.

The previous maximum bylaw signature requirement for both events was 500.  Under the revised bylaw, one-fifth of 1% of members would be 26,000.  The FOIA response denied much of the correspondence as to why this would be needed.

However, one can surmise the logic from the two comments from 2004/5.  Navy is so large and important that it would be too uncertain to just let anyone run for the board by collecting 500 member signatures.

Penfed’s circumstances are slightly different. Prior to this change in their bylaws,  a member had received the minimum 500 signatures to appear on the ballot in the just completed election.  The candidate was a former board member, familiar with the process. He was informed he did not receive sufficient votes to be elected, but was not shown the election numbers.

Shortly after, Penfed applied for and was quickly approved for twofold bylaw changes approved June 24, 2020 by the director of CURE:

  • A special members’ meeting now requires 1,000 signatures or one-fifth of total members but a number not to exceed 2,000. There are additional requirements before the meeting can be called however.  One includes the formation of a five-member committee to meet with the board.  The committee will be bound by whatever agreement is reached on behalf of the petitioners; if no agreement, only then can the call for the meeting be sent.
  • Nominations for the board by petition now require total signatures of the greater of 1,000 or one-fifth of total members (no upper limit). No nominations will be accepted from the floor if there is only one candidate per vacancy.  All board nominating committee candidates must be sent to members 75 days prior to the meeting.  Nominations by petition must be filed with the secretary 40 days prior to the same meeting.  This timing effectively provides members just 35 days to get signatures to add to the Board’s selected candidates after they are first disclosed.

With this bylaw, Penfed board nominations by member petition would require 5,800 signatures versus the original 500 maximum.

The effect of both bylaw changes is to virtually eliminate any chance of a board nomination by petition.   Note these changes were done without any member input, no announcement by either credit union or NCUA of this fundamental change in the bylaw election process.  And now that it is public . . .

Election Conduct Is Not NCUA’s Responsibility

NCUA avoids any involvement in board elections.   Four members of Virginia Credit Union submitted nominations for the annual board election. Here is the background to their effort in a post, The Fix Is In.  The members were not interviewed by the nominating committee They asked NCUA for assistance.

Regional Director John Kutchey ‘s reply summarized in  a Credit Union Times report  reads in part:

In his letter, Kutchey said the NCUA considers the right to participate in the director election process a fundamental, material right for members of a federally chartered credit union.

“The FCU Bylaws provisions that implement this right include, but are not limited to, a requirement that the FCU’s nominating committee interview each interested member that ‘meets any qualifications established by the nominating committee,’” Kutchey wrote. “Also, the FCU Bylaws provide alternative processes to run for a board seat for members interested in serving on the FCU’s board who are not selected by the FCU’s nominating committee.”

But that is just for FCU’s, not state charters.  There has never been a reported instance of NCUA ever enforcing this interpretation for FCU’s.

Despite Kutchey’s high sounding phrases, NCUA has approved bylaw changes and board nomination outcomes that make a charade of democratic governance.  Credit union boards and CEO’s see NCUA turning a blind eye to the repeated self-nomination and perpetual control closing any election choice.  So, except for extremely rare events, boards turn into self-perpetuating, self selected directors.  Member-owner governance via the annual meeting election does not exist.  And with it a critical accountability check on the ambitions of the CEO and boards.

Mergers: A Game Without Rules

Knowing that they are insulated from any real member accountability or oversight, credit union CEO’s and boards feel unrestricted when they decide to seek mergers with other credit unions.  The basic test is not what is in the members’ best interest, but where can management and board get the best deal for themselves—sometimes right before the CEO makes an exit.

Today credit union “voluntary” mergers are a game without any rules. Financially successful credit unions combine  rhetorical generalizations referring to scale, common culture and shared vision. There is no pretense of fiduciary responsibility including the required duties of care for member-owner assets or of loyalty, to always act in the best interests of members.

NCUA blindly administers the process oblivious to the self-dealing and incoherent examples such as cross country mergers.  When challenged the Agency has two responses, one before and one for after.

Their first defense is that it is the members’ choice.  Note that this is most often the first time the members will be asked to vote on anything.

The Agency expects members who have put their confidence and money in the credit union, often for generations, to act contrary to the recommendations of the leaders to whom they have entrusted their resources and financial relationships.  And if a member or group were to speak up, the credit union will either refuse to answer their concern or, use the full corporate resources against their opposing members. (multiple examples to follow)

The members are not even provided the same information credit unions are required to submit to NCUA on the merger package checklist. The owners are effectively removed from seeing the same data and information the regulator does.

But the worst part of NCUA’s studied neglect is its role if all the promises, undertakings and promised merger benefits fail to materialize.  What happens afterwards? The answer is nothing happens, no matter how flagrant the violations promised in the Member Notice which NCUA approved.

NCUA has published a booklet called Truth in Mergers.  It promotes merger as a strategic option, oblivious of any accountability to the owners.

When a merger turns out to be merely a planned sale to a third party with no background or interest other than asset acquisition, what are  jilted members to do?

Here is NCUA’s reply from page 21 of the Merger Manual:

Take measures to enforce the merger agreement. How can merger agreement provisions be enforced when one party to the agreement no longer exists? NCUA’s Office of General Counsel suggests that a merging credit union name in the contract the third-party beneficiaries with standing to enforce the contract. For example, if the continuing credit union agrees to keep a branch open for at least one year, the agreement would note that the members of the discontinuing credit union are beneficiaries with standing. Likewise, if staff is promised a comparable position in the continuing credit union, the merger agreement should note their interest in the position, not to be terminated without cause for one year. Because these matters would fall under state contract law, the wording should be state specific.

Don’t come to NCUA if you have been duped or conned and stripped of your cooperative savings.  Not NCUA’s problem.  Go find an attorney and use your personal resources to fight the people who just screwed you.

I will present multiple examples of this kind of self-serving mentality and NCUA’s impotence even when confronted with the facts.

A Dangerous Myth

The bottom line is that NCUA does not believe in or support owner rights.  A cooperative member is nothing more than a customer.   Chairman Harper’s regulatory philosophy as presented in a GAC address is revealing.  Note especially his ending words — the logic that credit unions do not discriminate because they are owned by their members is a dangerous myth and one that should end. While he might have intended otherwise, the real dangerous myth he evokes is “credit unions are owned by their members” His full comment:

Since joining the Board, I have focused on strengthening the NCUA’s consumer financial protection and fair lending resources. Given the consumer compliance examination program for comparably sized community banks, our program’s scope is insufficient, especially for those credit unions between $1 billion and $10 billion in assets. We should be doing more, and we can do more.

I understand this is not a popular opinion in this room. Many within the industry maintain that the NCUA should primarily focus on its safety-and-soundness mission or that the agency has not demonstrated a significant rationale for a stronger consumer compliance program.

Some also contend that the cooperative nature of credit unions prevents their lending practices from being discriminatory because their primary purpose is to serve their members’ needs. However, the logic that credit unions do not discriminate because they are owned by their members is a dangerous myth and one that should end.

Boards and CEO’s have taken their cues from this amoral stance.   When NCUA has no belief in owner-members, does nothing to support democratic participation and keeps members in the dark about their own activities, is it any wonder that CEO’s and boards believe they are completely free to decide their credit union’s future without any regulatory or member accountability.

Examples to follow.

Posted on

An NCUA Professional and Credit Union Believer Dies

Last Thursday, January 18, 2024 D. Michael Riley a career credit union professional died.  He was 77 years old and is survived by his wife of 41 years, Lori.

After serving in the military, Mike graduated from the University of Alabama joining NCUA as a field examiner in 1972.  A  little more than 13 years later (May 1985) he succeeded me as Director of the Office of Programs.   This responsibility included overseeing the newly capitalized NCUSIF, the CLF and the Agency’s Supervision and Examination programs.

Regional Director Riley speaking at NCUA’s December 1984 National Examiners and Credit Union Conference.

Rising to the Top

His meteoric rise to the highest responsibility in agency reflected his ability to get things done.  In 1982 he was reassigned from NCUA’s Central Office to become Director in Region Six-the Western part of the United States.

California was the epicenter of problem credit unions exacerbated by double digit inflation and unemployment and the number and size of  credit unions.   I believe Mike, at 35,  was the youngest examiner ever promoted to RD at NCUA.

Chairman Callahan believed that effective supervision required the leadership of the six RD’s, not rule-making in Washington.  They were the critical managers of the agency’s most important responsibility—the examination program.  Success was achieved not by cashing out problems with insurance money; but by developing resolution  plans unique to each situation and underwritten by cooperative patience.

Regional Directors Allen Carver, Mike Riley, Lyn Skyles and Executive Director Bucky Sebastian at the December 1984 NCUA Conference.

A Passion for the Movement

Mike’s  progress from new examiner to RD in a decade is a testament to his grasp of credit union operations. Most importantly he bought into the changes Ed Callahan was seeking.  He knew how to get things done, an uncommon trait in a bureaucracy.  He had the ability to work with everyone, but was not a “yes” person.

Last July I wrote a brief article about Ed’s time as a football coach and how that influenced his approach to leadership: The Roots and Legacy of a Credit Union Leader.

Mike responded:  Great article, I know he taught me a lot.  

When Ed left after three years and eight months as NCUA Chair, the small team of five whom he brought from Illinois also left.  Senator Roger Jepsen, the next NCUA Chair, did not have a background in either administration or credit unions.

This is when Mike made his most critical  contribution.  Significant change in a governmental bureaucracy will not last if successors do not believe in the new directions.

It is a bureaucratic reflex that when a Chair leaves, staff reasserts their priorities. This is especially the case when  incoming Board members have little or no prior credit union experience.  Instead Mike insured the fundamental tenets from the Callahan era of deregulation were sustained.

Hitting the Ground Running

When returning to DC in 1985 as Director of the Office of Programs, he testified with Chairman Callahan on the CLF’s annual budget appropriation within his first 30 days.  In September 11 and 12, 1985  he was NCUA’s spokesperson to the House Banking Committee on credit unions’ condition as the new NCUA Chair had yet to take over.

As reported in  NCUA News September 1985, he said “federal credit unions had strong gains and a remarkable track record in an increasingly competitive, deregulated environment.”  He called the capitalization of the NCUIF, “the most significant development since its founding in 1971. It had quadrupled in size solely through the financial support of insured credit unions.”

In the wake of the Ohio and Maryland S&L crises, he stated NCUA supports the dual chartering system and the option of private insurance for state charters.  “This arraignment has served the credit union movement well, providing strength and innovation out of competition.”

For the next ten years (1985-1995) as Director of Programs Mike continued the critical administrative and policy priorities that Callahan had implemented.  These included an annual exam cycle, total transparency of performance, expense control. the CLF’s expansion to every credit union and promoting the uniqueness of the credit union system.

In the years he led the Office, failures caused the downfall of the FSLIC and the separate S&L industry, the initial bankruptcy and refunding of the FDIC and ongoing economic cycles. However credit unions and the funds NCUA managed continued their steady progress. Growth in credit union service and members expanded across the country.

Continued Interest in the Movement

In May 2023 post I wrote about the dangerous goal of NCUA’s goal of seeking parity with other  regulators.  He commented: Outstanding article. Thanks for laying out so clearly. It’s hard to get into the nuts and bolts but somehow NCUA’s operating costs needs to be reduced, fewer administrators and more hands on folks.

He also had a dry sense of humor with an affable southern temperament.

I recall his moderating a GAC panel of two former NCUA Chairs, Ed Callahan and Senator Jepsen.  He led a revealing conversation with charm and wit. If someone has a cassette tape of this session, it would be illuminating to hear how Mike navigated the discussion of these two leaders.

People liked Mike.  His colleagues were family.  Lori and he would hold an open house every Christmas inviting both NCUA and credit union friends.

After leaving NCUA in the mid 1990’s, Mike worked with Callahan and Associates and then on his own as a consultant.  He was a Trustee of the TCU mutual funds family.

His Views on Today’s Trends

Mike wrote about current credit union events  in this  complete post in April 2023. He was concerned about  worrisome trends in credit unions leading to their “creative destruction.”  He draws from his early years as an examiner overseeing 30-40 credit  unions.  He closes with this observation on mergers:

This ongoing march continues. The merger of two sound credit unions without some legitimate reason doesn’t seem to be member oriented. I still think of the members of those small credit unions who received services such as buying a washer that no one else would do.

Bigger is not better if the member does not benefit.  How many of these mergers produce lower loan rates , higher dividends, or distinctly better products at a lower price? Carried to the extreme we will be left with 20 credit unions that are no different than large banks. 

(and on NCUA’s role)

Schumpeter opined “If someone wants to commit suicide, it is a good thing if a doctor is present.”

Memorial Service Details

A service of celebration and resurrection will be held on Saturday, February 10, 2024, at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (UMC) at 304 South Talbot Street, St. Michaels, MD.

The family will welcome friends and relatives at St. Luke’s UMC from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM, which will be one hour prior to the service at 12:00 PM.In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Habitat for Humanity Choptank, Salvation Army, St. Luke’s UMC, or Talbot Humane.

 

Posted on

Credit Unions Top Users of Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP)

At the end of the September quarter, credit union total assets of $2.25 trillion were just 9.7% of total banking assets.  However their participation in the special emergency Federal Reserve lending program equaled 27% of the BEFP’s loans at yearend or three times their share of total assets.

The September 2023 call reports show 307 credit unions with Federal Reserve borrowings  of $34.9 billion, an average of  $114 million.  For these credit unions, the Federal Reserve represents 66% of their total borrowings.  For 112 of this group, the Federal Reserve is their only source.  The largest reported loan is $2.0 billion and two credit unions report draws of just $500,000 each.

In an ironical coincidence with the BTFP participation, this total was also 27% of all credit union borrowings at the quarter end of $130.3 billion.  Moreover this $35 billion was only a small portion of the reported $173.4 billion in total lines these credit unions  had established with  the Federal Reserve.

Most of these loans were drawn following the banking liquidity crisis in March.  The Fed created the  emergency Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) after the Silicon Valley Bank failure to prevent a system wide run by uninsured depositors on other depository institutions.

This facility was different from traditional Federal Reserve programs.  Eligible collateral security was expanded,  all collateral was valued at par, not market , and draws could go up to one year.  The rate for term advances under the Program is the one-year overnight index swap rate plus 10 basis points. The rate is fixed for the term of the advance on the day the line is drawn down.

What Happens Next?

In a January 9, 2024 speech to Women in Housing the Federal Reserve’s Vice Chairman  for Supervision, Michael Barr, was  asked about the program’s future when the initial one year life is over. Here are portions of his reply:

Moderator: I wanted to ask you about the future of the BTFP. We are rapidly approaching the one-year mark, is this something where the Fed is planning on extensions, or any information to be released to the public on usage?

Vice Chair for Supervision Barr:  So when the funding stress happened in March 2023, over the weekend the Federal Reserve, FDIC and Treasury agreed to a systemic risk exception to least cost resolution for the FDIC. And the Federal Reserve and the Treasury worked together to create an emergency lending program for banks and credit unions, the Bank Term Funding Program that you are referencing. And the Bank Term Funding Program enables banks to use collateral that was in place as of that time – as of March of 2023 – that is, essentially Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities, to pledge those, and to be able to get borrowing against that up to a year at the par value of those securities.

That program was really designed in that emergency situation. It was designed to address what in the statute is called unusual and exigent circumstances – you can think of it as an emergency. . .we want to make sure that banks and creditors of banks and depositors of banks understand that banks have the liquidity they need. And that program worked as intended. It dramatically reduced stress in the banking system very, very quickly. And deposit outflows which had been very rapid in that short period of time normalized to what had been going on before and in fact maybe flattened out to some extent a little bit.

So that program was highly effective, banks and credit unions are borrowing under that program today, but it was really set up as an emergency program. It was set up with a one-year timeframe, so banks can continue to borrow now all the way through March 11 of this year. . .a bank could continue to borrow or refinance under the program and in March of this year have a loan that then extends to March 2025. 

I expect continued usage until that end date of March 11, but it really was established as an emergency program for that moment in time.

Arbitrage Opportunity Grows Outstandings

Two days after Barr spoke, the Wall Street Journal published an update on the program: Banks Game Fed Rescue Program.

The article reported that the BTFP pricing, based on the benchmark interest  rates average  plus 10 basis points, was less than the 5.4%  the Fed was paying on overnight excess reserves. This arbitrage opportunity has resulted in an increase of  $12 billion in more drawdowns since yearend even though  no liquidity strains were apparent in either system.

Credit unions can request extensions up to one year until March 11, 2024.   After that date, the statement above and the most recent activity suggest the program will end.  Credit unions should plan to either repay or tap other sources of liquidity.

And the CLF?

It should be noted that the Central Liquidity Facility reports no loans this year as of its November financial statements.   In fact it has initiated no new loans since 2009. The BTFP participation suggests credit unions certainly have liquidity needs. However  the CLF, designed to serve and funded totally by credit unions, is not as responsive as the Federal Reserve Banks.

 

 

Posted on

A Lesson from the Latest FDIC Premium Assessments on Banks

Last Friday the four largest banks in American announced their  4th quarter and full year financial results.

All had one new, significant expense in the 4th quarter.  Here are the numbers from the New York Times article: Biggest Banks Earn Billions, Even after Payments to the FDIC Fund-(January 13, 2024)

Bank                         $ FDIC Payment

JP-Morgan                  $2.9 billion

Bank of America        $2.1 billion

Wells Fargo                 $1.9 billion

Citigroup                     $1.7 billion

These premiums are necessary to cover the costs for the FCIC’s losses on bank failures earlier in 2023.   FDIC’s reported  loss expense through the first three quarters of 2023 was $19.7 billion.

The FDIC is collecting approximately $16.3 billion in this fourth quarter assessment. The four largest banks will pay the $8.6 billion shown above  or 53% of the total.

Premiums comprised more than 81% of the FDIC ‘s total revenue through the first three quarters of 2023.  Interest income from the FDIC’s investments, the other revenue source, would cover FDIC ‘s operating expenses.  But the $600 million excess would not even begin to cover the almost $20 billion in estimated  insurance losses.  (all data is through September 30, 2023).

FDIC Premiums and Insured Deposits Not Connected

There is no relationship between premiums and FDIC’s insurance coverage of $250,00 per account.  Instead premiums are calculated on  a bank’s net assets which is called its “assessment base.”  At September 2023 this was $20.7 trillion versus just $10.7 trillion of insured shares.

FDIC’s revenue is no longer based on its stated goal to protect depositors’ savings but rather the FDIC’s  role in stabilizing  the entire industry’s balance sheet.   When banks succeed, shareholders win.  When banks fail, everybody pays.

FDIC’s Complex Pricing Structure

The FDIC may set the premium at whatever level it deems necessary to achieve its minimum ratio goal of 1.35%.  The fund recorded an approximately $10 billion operating loss through the September quarter putting the ratio  at just 1.13%.    The $17 billion new assessment is needed cover this shortfall and grow the fund’s ratio target.

Moreover premium rates can vary from 2.5 to 42 basis points  depending on bank size, that is whether an institution is more or less than $10 billion in assets. The final rate is based on each bank’s CAMELS rating plus, for larger firms, a scorecard which measures  “complexity.”

The assessment rates are so complicated  that the FDIC  posts three different calculators for banks to determine what amount they must pay.

This premium system provides virtually no check and balance on pricing, except the rule making process.  It is frequently “updated” and always open- ended in amount. There is no incentive or check and balance on FDIC effectiveness in its oversight or problem solving roles.  Banks must bear the costs not only from institutional failures but also from FDIC’s supervisory effectiveness, good and bad.

The Cooperative Alternative in the NCUSIF

By comparison the NCUSIF is simple to understand, administer and monitor.  Statements are posted monthly.  Public board  updates on investment returns and overall financial trends are presented at least quarterly so credit unions can track their cooperatively designed fund.

The 1% deposit underwriting means premiums are extremely rare, assessed only four times in 40 years since the 1984 redesign went in effect.   Dividends have been paid out over a dozen times.

When the 1% deposits totals are added to the retained earnings, the investment portfolio remains relative in size to the insured risk at all times.  Investment income has proven adequate to  meet all of the fund’s operating expenses and sustain a stable operating level between 1.2 and 1.3% of insured savings.  Based on the latest November NCUSIF financial report the fund’s equity should be at or above the long-time upper cap of  1.3% at yearend 2023.

With NCUSIF equity at the high end of the .2-.3 range, it means there is over $1.7 billion in additional  reserve for any contingency.  In the October NCUSIF update the CFO reported the five-year loss average since 2017 was only .1 of 1 basis point.  The net actual cash loss so far in 2023  was just $1.0 million in the same update.

With over 40 years of data from all economic cycles, financial crisis and evolving credit union business models, there are decades of real data to validate the NCUSIF’s financial design.  This record shows that to maintain a stable NOL a yield  on investments of 2.5-3.0% would sustain the fund through virtually any growth or economic cycle and any operating contingency.

This historical 1.3 % cap is due for Board review in February based on 2023 yearend earnings.   This decision is an important commitment  of  NCUA  to the credit unions who  underwrite the fund.   Unlike the FDIC’s premium dependency, the NCUSIF’s investment portfolio return has proven to be a reliable,  predictable and sufficient model-in all environments.

Therefore, when net income exceeds the NOL cap, the credit unions are paid a dividend on the excess income recognizing their overall sound performance.  This return is a critical element of the cooperative design.

The FDIC’s premium model is unpredictable, subjective and arbitrary,  and most importantly unrelated to the actual insurance coverage per account.

Why the NCUSIF Design Works

The credit union model is based on the historical operational and cooperative  values on which credit unions are founded.  All participants are treated equally.  Risk and expenses are shared alike for all.  It is democratic and accountable in its structure.

The redesign was accomplished with industry-wide  collaboration and participation.  It required congressional approval. It was based on the oldest of cooperative concepts: self-help.  No government assistance or funding was sought or necessary.

Instead the credit unions put themselves in the law as the underwriters of the fund’s resilience, no matter the circumstance.  This is how they intend to maintain their independence as a separate financial system.  For example the S&L’s were merged with the banks and the FDIC when their system collapsed.   Unlike the for-profit, stockholder owned banking system, the moral hazard examples of excessive risk taking by management are extremely rare in the cooperative model.

Understanding NCUSIF’s unique history and design and why it fits credit unions so well is especially important whenever a new board member comes to NCUA.  It will be especially critical Tanya Otsuka be informed of NCUSIF’s special character and long term performance, as much of her professional background is within the FDIC.

The February NOL setting will be the first of many opportunities she will have to show her understanding of the differences between bank and credit union regulation.  Credit unions should be communicating that distinction now.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Credit Union Shareholders Receive $16 Million; NCUA Receives Judge’s Reckoning

Yesterday the Dakota Credit Union Association announced that NCUA had agreed to pay more than $11.9 million to the former credit union members of Midwest Corporate Credit Union.  Their pro rata share of US Central’s capital, along with a similar recovery by Iowa credit unions, will bring the total payments to over $16 million.

This outcome culminates efforts commenced in 2021 by the two Leagues and their members.  Ultimately legal suits were filed when NCUA rejected the credit unions’ repeated recovery efforts.

In his October 2023 ruling the Chief Judge of the US District Court District hearing the case wrote: “simple logic and hornbook property law support construing the FCUA as including automatic transfer of assets.  In general, assets do not simply evaporate when the owner is unable to collect; rather the property must go somewhere.

Consequently, a credit union’s asset likewise do not cease to exist come the last day of a wind-up.  Instead, the most logical conclusion is that the assets vest in the credit union’s shareholders.”

A Three-Year Bureaucratic Slog

According to an August 29, 2022 statement by the Dakota League challenging NCUA “To Do the Right Thing”, the Agency had actually been ready to release checks in 2021. NCUA changed its mind when informed that the (federally chartered) corporate had been voluntarily liquidated years earlier.

North Dakota’s two Senators wrote NCUA Chair Harper concerning the nonpayment. He replied on September 2, 2022 that “After careful review and legal consideration, the liquidation agent determined that because Midwest no longer exists no distribution can be made to Midwest or its former shareholders.”

The League tried the administrative claims process. Again NCUA denied the request.   President Olson’s response to this final effort in February 2023 showed his frustration: “This is a clear case of obstruction through bureaucratic hurdles and complicated language where the process is the punishment, and does not provide justice.”

The North Dakota League filed its lawsuit in April 2023.  This was followed in June when 63 of Iowa’s 75 credit unions sued the NCUA for $4.2 million to recover their U.S. Central claims. Joining in the lawsuit was the Iowa Credit Union League, its foundation, political action committee and an employee benefits company.

A Lesson in Bureaucratic Obstinacy and Blindness

These years long efforts included all three branches of government.  The Dakota league attempted to play NCUA’s administrative game in which it learned that “the process was the punishment.” It requested and received support from North Dakota’s  two senators.  Chairman Harper stonewalled the appeal from the legislature.

The last remedy was the judiciary. The judge explicitly rejected NCUA’s logic.  “The fund’s vest in the credit union’s shareholders.”

It is not a comforting example of regulatory judgment when common sense or “doing the right thing” apparently had little role in NCUA’s decision.  When dozens of staff lawyers and three “independent” board members see only one position, this raises concerns about the agency’s deliberative processes and/or the competency of the advice being given.

CooperatIve Action in the Members’ Interest

The good news is that cooperative efforts, especially at the league level, persistence and advocacy did prevail.  It is hard for an individual credit union to counter an NCUA position.  Collective action is a credit union advantage even in regulatory judgments.

The credit union shareholders, the members of Midwest and Iowa corporate, have received their just due.  And that standard, what is in the members’ best interest, should  be the determining one.

Thank you to the cooperative leaders in these two states that stood by their members.

(Editor’s Note:  I first wrote about the situation in February 2023, urging NCUA to do the right thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

The Learning Process for an NCUA Newcomer

Yesterday Tanya Otsuka became the 25th  NCUA board member since its establishment in 1978.

Her professional resume includes serving on Senator Sherrod Brown’s banking committee  and as a staff attorney at the FDIC.

Her direct experience with the credit union community is limited.

Onboarding is a critical process for anyone new to cooperative system leadership.  She has significant responsibility in overseeing and managing NCUA’s relationships with credit unions.

What Makes for Effective Onboarding?

Newcomers to important credit union leadership roles are becoming more frequent.

One example is BECU’s  CEO Beverly Anderson. Her professional background was in banking.  She provided an extended CU Times interview describing her transition as a first time coop CEO:

“What’s exciting about this role is, one I’m a first-time CEO, two I’m in the credit union movement for the first time, and three it’s my first time at BECU and here in the Pacific Northwest.  . .

“The first six, seven months or so have really been about listening and learning. I did 30-plus deep dives with the organization, used that time to get to know the team and have them get to know me, and learned a lot about the business.

“The second thing I did was begin to understand the movement. It was very clear when I started using language like ‘profitability’ and ‘ROA,’ and people very quickly suggested I use some different language.

“It’s helped me to understand that the movement is in fact very, very different. Our return is around return to member, not necessarily return on assets, and that was a very big shift and pivot, but one that I quite relished.

“The third thing was getting to know my board – I have a new kind of boss and leader, a board. . .they are encouraging, engaging, experienced in their own right, and they have a lot of support and commitment for this organization.”

 Onboarding An NCUA Board Member

Immediate board items and credit union events in 2024 will provide examples of Otsuka’s approach in her new role.

The following are questions on areas vital to credit unions as she undertakes her responsibilities.  

What is her understanding of the role of the non-profit, tax exempt, member-owned cooperative system in the American economy? 

Who does she turn to for advice? 

How does she learn from the credit union constituencies she is serving?  

Does her response to credit union issues enhance the member-owners’ role?   

What is her availability and openness with the public? (e.g. Anderson’s interview above)

The First 100 Days

Credit union press accounts presume Otsuka will become Chairman Harper’s policy doppelgänger.  That is, her democratic credentials mean her role is simply a reliable second vote for him to assert his regulatory and spending views on the industry.

Or, as an outsider might she bring a new generation’s fresh hope and enthusiasm for credit unions unique opportunities?  Are credit union priorities for NCUA a question of party labels?

My hope is that her unfamiliarity with cooperatives and NCUA result in an enlightened voice supporting innovation with a passion for credit unions.

When one reads BECU Beverly Anderson’s learning process, there is a sense of confidence, commitment, and positive leadership energy.

That learning spirit is especially needed in this moment of credit union challenges and NCUA’s increasing peripherality.

Posted on

January 1985: An Historic Turning Point for Credit Unions

For forty years, the NCUSIF has maintained  not only its own financial integrity but more importantly, the trust and confidence of the credit union system’s members. This record of stability began in 1985 and continues unabated through 2023.

Over the same four decades the FSLIC, the separate S&L fund, failed and merged into the FDIC.  The FDIC has had negative net equity on several occasions requiring an explicit government guarantee.  It has constantly modified  its premium model to accommodate numerous industry crisis.  These  include multiple premium levels, risk based pricing, an expanded assessment base for premiums, differential pricing according to institution size and other financial or accounting maneuvers. It’s equity to insured deposits has fluctuated from negative to 1.1% at June 30, 2023.

During this same period of national economic and interest rate cycles, the NCUSIF’s unique cooperative design allowed it to remain strong. The fund’s yearend equity level  of 1.2-1.3% of insured shares has always been met.  Premiums have been necessary only four times in this four decades.

“D” For Deposit Day

This fundamental  redesign was a two-year industry wide effort.

This priority came to fruition in January 1985 when the first 1% credit union deposit underwritings for the new insurance model were delivered to NCUA.  The event was pictured in NCUA’s 1985 Annual Report (pg 21):

(caption:  NCUA Staff Member Wayne Robb accepts a hand-delivered capitalization deposit in the unheated Washington lobby of the NCUA.)

The Chicago Tribune described this historic change in an article later that year:

“The solitary messenger clutched a plain brown envelope as he picked his way carefully across a deserted, icy sidewalk near the White House.  In- side was a check for $13 million.

“It was inauguration Day, 1985, a morning most memorable for the raw cold that forced cancellation of a parade and drove President Reagan inside to take his second oath of office.

“But for the messenger, and for the trio huddled around an electric space heater waiting for the check, it was also the deadline for credit unions to deliver payments to the new-look federal insurance fund that backs the deposits of 51 million credit union members.

“The $13 million check, the largest single payment, was from the huge Navy Federal Credit Union in Washington.

“The little-noticed transaction–one of more than 7,000 totaling $480 million that frosty January weekend–illustrates how the nation’s 15,000 federally insured credit unions have quietly put their house in order.

“Edgar  F. Callahan Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration said credit union’s willingness to embrace a new approach to shoring up their insurance fund was just one example of how the industry has recovered from the hard times of 1981.  

The challenge for his successor, Callahan said, is to keep Congress and other policy-makers aware that credit unions are unique.

“You’re in an industry this often grouped with banks and S&L’s and there’s a tendency to get painted with the same brush,” he said.  

“There is a danger to getting sucked into that atmosphere.  My successor will need to maintain that credit unions have been ahead of the problem curve and need not be grouped with other financial institutions.”

The Workup for Change

The NCUSIF was created in 1970, with no government-provided startup capital.  The Fund’s design mimicked the premium base of both the FDIC and FSLIC each which had a 35-year head start accumulating retained earnings.  But from 1979 onward the premium approach, even with doubling assessments,  did not prevent the Fund’s equity ratio from decline.

In April 1983 the NCUA presented a Report to Congress on the Credit Union Insurance Fund.  The Report was over 130 pages in seven chapters responding to specific Congressional questions and making four recommendations:

  1. All credit unions, federal or state, should have a choice of insurer;
  2. Capitalize the NCUSIF with a 1% deposit of insured shares;
  3. Authorized at least one uninsured share per member as capital;
  4. Keep the  insurance fund independent from FDIC/FSLIC due to the unique nature and role of credit unions.

The Report included direct quotes from leagues, private cooperative insurers, credit unions along with a history of credit union stabilization options prior to NCUA insurance.

Following the publication of this Report, NCUA and credit unions working in partnership developed an alternative to the traditional premium model describing it as, A Better Way.  It drew upon the two decade experiences of private insurer alternatives.  It rested on the fundamental cooperative concept that members should own their own fund.

The financial logic and analysis was summarized in a video sent to all credit unions and interested parties on the NCUA’s Video Network.  The following is an excerpt from this longer analysis,  A Better Way:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlqxLeFkuLY&t=30s)

This redesign was achieved by challenging long time conventional governmental practice.  The alternative was drawn from cooperative experience and principles.

Trust in the Fund was not due to more regulation or open ended premium assessments.  It was constructed on mutual commitments including frequent and audited financial transparency, accountability for expenses and legislative guardrails.

This capacity to “imagine differently” resulted from collaboration and open communication at every step.  The historical financial analysis (above) and future forecasts were public, for all to review and refine.

The effort was not a sudden epiphany. Rather it resulted from hard work, shared viewpoints, a desire to create something better and courage to change.

The First Year’s Bottom Line

At the end of fiscal 1985, the fund held $883 million in 1% deposits.  Earlier in the year each credit union received a pro-rata equity distribution (in excess of the Fund’s .3% equity) of $80 million to meet the January 1% funding obligation followed by a $30 million cash dividend at yearend.

This 12.5% return on the 1% capital deposits was on top of fact that this was the first year since the Fund opened in 1970 that no premium was charged. (page 5, 1985 NCUSIF Annual Report)

In future blogs I will present how the fund  navigated specific economic and industry challenges.

Continued success does not rest on design alone.  Credit unions must also exercise continuous oversight of NCUA’s vital  responsibilities for fund management and supervisory oversight.

 

Posted on

Observations From NCUA’s 2024 Budget Approval

After a public hearing, multiple written comments and some give and take between board members, these are some of my initial observations from last Thursday’s board meeting on the 2024 Agency Budget.

  1. Only .02% of 1% was reduced  in the final budget of $385.7 million by the board from the initial staff amount.
  2. No discussion of why the Office of Information Serves (i.e. computer support) depends on contractors for 71% of its operations totalling $44.5 million.
  3. A 16.4% in the federal credit union operating fee when the Operating Fund’s cash on hand now would almost cover a full year’s expenses.  Or why the $24 million “carry forward” from 2023 (unspent  amounts collected) is not returned to credit unions, but “reallocated” to 2024.
  4. Why only four new charters justifies a 18% increase and 41 staff in the office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion(CURE); also when the industry’s total numbers declined by almost 170 credit unions.
  5. Most curious was the increases in staff to a total of 23 and 20% budget raise to $6.4 million in the Asset Management and Assistance center when the total reported losses to date in the NCUSIF are just $1.0 million. The remaining corporate AME’s are to be disbursed soon.  The office is spends more on staff than on the assets it oversees.
  6.  The CLF’s $2.2 million budget is nothing more than an effort to transfer NCUA’s overhead expenses to another set of books which credit unions fund separately. The CLF’s 4.62% third quarter dividend was at least .75% below what credit unions could earn in the overnight market, meaning NCUA requires members to subsidize this inert operation.

There are multiple other expenditures that appear with no specific goals or outcomes.   The board discussions were general observations.  Credit unions deserve more coherent and specific details to have confidence in how their funds are used.

In the spirit of the season, this cartoon caught my eye.  It summarizes NCUA’s budget review from a credit union perspective.