Quick Takes on NCUA’s Four KPMG December 2022 Audits

On February 13, 2023 NCUA posted the December yearend audits of its four managed funds.

Publishing this audited information plus the interim monthly financial updates is an important resource for credit unions to monitor the Agency’s financial performance.

Today’s NCUA board meeting will include a public discussion of the NCUSIF, the largest and most critical report because it relies on the credit unions’  1% capital deposit as its funding base.

General Audit Observations

Three of the four funds are presented following GAAP accounting standards.  These three financial statements and footnotes are easy to follow.   However the NCUSIF is presented using Federal GAAP accounting.  There are fundamental differences in presentation and transparency between these two approaches.  I’ll address these below.

Total NCUA expenses in its three main funds (NCUSIF, Operating and CLF) total $ 332.1 million, an increase of $14.5 million (4.6%) from 2021.   The NCUSIF paid 63% of this expense total.   It should be noted that all NCUA’s revenue is from credit unions and interest on their funds held by the agency.

The smallest of the four, the community Development Revolving Loan Fund does not have allocated expenses and has minimal activity-only $1.5 million in “technical assistance grants.”

The NCUSIF’s Audit

The Board meeting is only discussing the NCUSIF today. It is the most consequential for credit unions in terms of credit union impact and support.

The NCUSIF had a  stable year.  Total expenses rose to $208 million or 4.5%.   Net cash losses were just over $10 million.  However $33 million additional expense was added to the reserve account raising its total by $ 23 million to $185 million.  That reserve balance  equates to 1.1 basis points of insured shares, a  ratio greater than the most recent five years net cash loss rate.

Several very important issues are not directly addressed in the audit.  But hopefully will be raised by Board members.

The first is the Federal GAAP presentation that uses completely misleading terms for a non-appropriated government entity.  Fed GAAP has no accounting concept of retained earnings, but rather presents “cumulative result of operations.”   This number includes any changes in the market value of the fund’s major asset-treasury securities as of the audit date.

Other accounting categories such as intragovernmental assets, exchange revenue, public liabilities, net position and order of presentation are completely foreign concepts for standard GAAP financial statements.  They obscure  understanding of financial performance.  Even NCUA staff converts the information to a standard GAAP format for the board.

The accounting term “cumulative results of operations”  which replaces “retained earnings” shows a decline  from $4.8 billion to $3.2 billion due to the $1.6 billion difference in market and book value of the NCUSIF’s investments.  Also the fund’s total capital which includes  the 1% deposit shows a fall from $20.6 billion to $20.2 billion.

This is how the balance sheet is reported even though the NCUSIF had a positive bottom line of $185 million using standard GAAP accounting.  Any reporter or other user of this statement would be left with a very negative impression of the Fund’s balance sheet financial position from this presentation.

Also Federal GAAP considers all AME and NCUSIF managed estates as “fiduciary” and therefore not part of the NCUSIF’s balance sheet.   As a result only the net amount of the corporate and natural person combined AME numbers is shown in footnotes.  Expenses are netted against income.  Tracking the reasons for increases and decreases in “net liabilities” is impossible as only totals are provided.

This off-balance sheet accounting means the corporate AME’s and NPCU estates are not part of the monthly NCUSIF updates.  Their  revenue and expenses are not reported.  And the amounts under management are large, in the hundreds of millions for the Corporate estates, that are still owed credit unions.

This is a situation ripe for error and mismanagement.  Timely and full disclosure of these off-balance sheet funds are material to understanding the fund’s actual performance.

The All Important NOL

The most important yearend result is the NOL calculation.  A footnote reports the “NCUA’s calculation” as 1.3% or below the board’s 1.33% cap.

This is a ratio composed of the June 2022, 1% capitalization balance, an audited retained earnings (note the switch to GAAP) at December 2022, and an unaudited insured shares total as of February 10, 2023.  Two different accounting dates are used in the numerator (June 30 and December 31) and an unaudited total in the denominator.   The result is a misleading NOL ratio.

Share growth in 2023 was just 3.4% with credit unions reported lower total insured shares at December 31 than at June 30.  However the larger June 1% deposit number is used in the denominator even though net deposit refunds will be sent from this total.   In essence the actual NOL is slightly overstated.

Moreover, It is easy to estimate what credit unions’ 1% deposit net liability is. Just take 1% of the denominator’s total for insured shares.   That is how private GAAP would present the ratio—and how the NCUA did the calculation until 2001.   As a consequence this  ratio misstates actual NOL and potentially, dividends due to credit unions.

The NCUSIF’s Investment Management

 

The fund’s most important asset is its $21 million of treasury investments.  The yearend audit shows a larger overnight cash position than in 2021.  However the fund’s weighted average life of 3.3 years has been largely unchanged during the past 12 months of Fed tightening.

The portfolio’s decline in market value is almost $1.7 billion at yearend.  This is important because the decline equates to over 10 basis points of the fund’s 30 basis point in retained earnings.  This  amount, on top of the 1% deposit, must remain at or above 1.2% or an equity restoration plan is required.

What is the fund’s interest risk management monitoring process?  Why would the NCUSIF keep investing long term in a rising rate environment?  Especially when there is an inverted yield curve?

As of Wednesday’s Feb 15’s market close, the one year treasury yield was 4.96% and the seven year was 1% lower at 3.94%.   This inverted yield curve has existed for almost six months.  All of the fundamentals suggest a shorter WAM for the NCUSIF’s portfolio.

The consequence of a 3.3 year weighted average maturity (WAM) is that NCUSIF investments will underperform market rates until the yield curve stabilizes at a new normal.   If today’s environment were representative of the future, it would take the fund over three years to recover its market losses.   During this adjustment, the NCUSIF revenue is shortchanged from current market returns.  Credit unions will suffer the shortfall either in lost dividends or, in a worst case scenario, a fee to maintain the NOL.

So today’s meeting is an important opportunity to see what the board and staff take away from this year’s NCUSIF performance.   The numbers are in, now what do they mean?  How can the fund’s presentation and management be more transparent to its credit union owners?   In short, how can performance be improved?

The Central Liquidity Facility

 

The CLF had a most interesting year financially as it reported $546 million in capital stock redemptions by agent corporates, partially offset by a $132 million increase in regular member shares.  Total capital declined by a net amount of $400 million due to these  stock paybacks and new purchases.

As has been the case since 2010, the CLF made no loans.  It paid out 97.3% of its $20.7 million net income in quarterly stock dividends totaling $3.69 per $50 share over the entire year.   That  equates to  a 7.4% annual dividend yield.

The CLF’s borrowing authority reverted to 12 times its capital and surplus with the expiration of the CARES Act temporary increase.   As a result, and also due to the decline in total capital , the CLF’s maximum borrowing amount fell from $35.7 in 2021 to $17.5 at yearend 2022.

All the CLF’s revenue is from interest on investments, which are kept at Treasury., even though CLF has broader statutory investment authority than the NCUSIF.   Income jumped from $4.5 to $22 million. Most of this increase was passed through as a dividend.

A point of inquiry would be why the liquidity facility had 7.6% of its investments in the 5-10 year maturity bucket.  Or why it keeps almost 40% in the 1-5 year range.   It would seem prudent that the CLF should place  investments no longer than the limit the NCUA places on corporates, or two years.

Operating Holds Fund Balance Exceeding Annual Expenses

 

The Operating Fund had expenses of $122.8 after all internal transfers, a $5.3 million (4.7%) increase over 2021.

The Fund retained an equity surplus of $133 million or 108% of 2022’s  total operating expenditures.  Interest on this fund balance did grow from nil to $2.4 million  as market rates rose.

Even though NCUA said it would reduce the credit union funds held by assessing a lower 2022 operating fee, the ending balance is still over three times the agency levels of earlier years.  It is far in excess of any cash flow coverage necessary  until the new year’s operating fees are received.

Transparency Only Matters if Credit Unions Pay Attention

One of the most important checks and balances credit unions requested in 1984 which NCUA committed to,  was an annual external CPA (not GAO) audit of the NCUSIF in return for the open ended 1% deposit funding base.

In addition, monthly financial updates would help monitor the fund’s expenses, reserves and overall management.

However, if the reports are not used by credit unions and only the press releases are followed, then the reporting and transparency model will not work.

For credit unions used to monthly financial analysis, this responsibility should be a “walk in the park.”   Take it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Credit Unions & Risk Based Capital (RBC): A Preliminary Analysis

From the June 30, 2022 call reports, NCUA reported:

  • 399 CUs opted into the Complex Credit Union Leverage Ratio (CCULR) framework with an average CCULR of 11.35%, or 26% higher than the 9% floor.
  • 304 CUs reported under the Risk-Based Capital (RBC) framework with an average RBC ratio of 15.39%, or 54% higher than the 10% minimum.

The 500 page, RBC rule and its almost 100 ratio calculations became effective January 1, 2022.  Just two weeks after NCUA board approval.

It was intended to provide greater insight about a credit union’s risk profile and capital adequacy. What can an analysis of the RBC adopters tell us from this initial implementation?

The Macro Totals

The 304 credit unions plus 4 ASI-insured who adopted RBC, manage $822.7 billion in assets.  But the risk weighted assets total only $479 billion.  That 58% ratio  is the NCUA’s discounting of total assets total by assigning relative risk weights.  For example some assets have zero “weight” (cash, treasuries) or negligible emphasis ( GSE’s 20%).

Compared to the traditional well-capitalized 7% of assets standard, this group holds $20.5 billion in excess capital above this ratio.

Using the minimum RBC ratio of 10%, this same group holds $26 billion in excess of the minimum.  As shown above, their average RBC is 15.4%.

The bottom line is that this group of credit unions is well capitalized whether using the 7% traditional level or the new RBC 10%.

Other Initial Findings

One intriguing fact is that 149 of these credit unions, or almost half, have traditional net worth exceeding 9%.  That  suggests most could opt out of the RBC calculations as they exceed the CCULR 9% compliance minimum.

For example, one credit union with assets between five and ten billion dollars, reports standard net worth of 12.5% and an RBC ratio of 48.3%.   Why did they report RBC versus CCULR?

One way CEO’s can use RBC is to show that even with a low traditional net worth  they are still more than well-capitalized.  A CEO holding 7.5% net worth may want to allocate future earnings for greater member value and avoid the 2% tax on net income  to maintain the 9% CCULR minimum.  Showing a high RBC to your board and members is a powerful defense of the lower traditional net worth measure.

A Look at Ratio Methodologies

However as shown by the banking example below, RBC captures very few risk factors. Its focus is solely on potential credit and/or principal losses on loans and investments.

One example: 250 of these 308 credit unions reported unrealized declines in the market value of investments that exceeded 25% of net worth.   Four credit unions reported a decline greater than 50% of capital.  This was before the five additional Federal Reserve’s  rate increases through the end of the year.  This situation is not recognized in RBC.

To compare peers and their capital performance is very confusing.  RBC credit unions can choose four different ways of calculating the ratio’s denominator.   Seventy two credit unions opted for a ratio  that did not use June quarter ending assets.  They chose one of three other options that  results in a lower total asset amount, and therefore a higher RBC outcome.

RBC ratio comparisons are further complicated when 152 of the RBC credit unions had a combined risk weighting of less than 60% of total assets.  In one case the risk weighted assets were just 24% of the total balance sheet.

Another difficulty in  comparisons is that there are other options for capital creation than retained earnings.  Seventy-six credit unions report that less than 95% of their “capital” came from their own earnings.  Twenty-four reported subordinated debt as capital and the majority of the remaining group were from equity acquired in a merger.

As a result RBC net worth ratios  reflect different capital strategies.  There is a difference in operating capabilities between institutions who rely solely on retained earnings and those who purchase capital.

Performance Outliers

The RBC spread sheet easily identifies those near the 7% minimum requirement-one is below 7% and 12 between 7 and 7.5%.

Using the 10% minimum RBC net worth, eight credit unions fall below this ratio and 15 have 10.5% or lower, and are close to the minimum.

These screens would be one way of assigning exam priorities.

Initial Observations About RBC

From both the macro numbers and the micro analysis, RBC does very little to inform about safety and soundness.

  1. The calculation is a backward looking indicator of soundness. It is at a point in time and includes no dynamic ratios.
  2. Comparisons of peer capital adequacy using ratio analysis is virtually meaningless because of the range of calculations possible and distribution of risk weighted assets.
  3. No current, critical performance indicators are included. No delinquency, no expense ratios, no liquidity indicators, no IRR or ALM measures, and certainly no growth factors of any kind.

Ironically, is it possible that a very high RBC ratio indicates very poor value creation for members? The very opposite outcome for a credit union to sustain success?   Are the 33 credit unions with RBCs in the 20%, 30% and 40% ranges really serving members as their below average  loan/share ratios leads to higher reported RBC?

A Preliminary Look

The above analysis is as of June 30, 2022.  I will revisit the RBC reporting credit unions at December 2022  to see if the numbers have significantly changed.  For example, how many of  the 148 above 9% net worth opt for CCULR?  Credit unions will then have a full year’s and four quarters experience exploring the pros and cons of using RBC.

At this preliminary analysis, RBC looks like an exercise for credit unions to select their most favorable capital presentation. It may even create perverse regulatory incentives  that undercut initiatives for enhanced member value.

A Case Study of RBC and Bank Reporting

The following is an excerpt of RBC analysis of a bank serving the crypto industry and its reported capital adequacy.  This was written by Todd Baker, 1stSenior Fellow, Richman Center at Columbia University. (#capital #regulation)

Silvergate Bank has officially reported, and there is a big lesson there for regulators about the failure of risk-based capital standards to adequately address the risks of #banks serving the #cryptotrading gambling emulation of finance.

The wisdom of hard equity leverage capital requirements for banks is clearly demonstrated. They lost a billion dollars and their risk-based capital ratios increased! . .

Again, kudos to whomever managed the process of securities sales, reclassifications, borrowings, etc. at Silvergate. He/she did an amazing job bringing the plane onto the landing strip with one engine in flames and half the tail falling off while keeping the Tier 1 leverage ratio over the 5% “minimum” (which is actually way below the minimum in practice). . .But they still have the need to raise new capital, and fast, because their Tier 1 leverage ratio is way, way too low for the inherent risk from the business, as everyone now knows.

Despite losing a billion dollars (likely more than the company made cumulatively in it’s entire history) in the quarter, driving its holdco ratio of common equity to total assets down to 3.61%, from 8.84% at the end of 2021, and immolating half of the bank’s Tier 1 leverage capital, the bank’s risk-based capital ratios are actually higher (!) than they were at the end of the prior year.

 

Why? Most of Silvergate’s assets were and are still government securities that are treated as riskless (0% risk weighting) or GSE securites that carry a 20% risk-weighting. Riskless, that is, until you have to sell them in a rising rate environment…

Compare these two disclosures, from year-end 2022 and 2021:

“At December 31, 2022, the Bank had a tier 1 leverage ratio of 5.12%, common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 53.89%, tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 53.89% and total risk-based capital ratio of 54.07%. These capital ratios each exceeded the “well capitalized” standards defined by federal banking regulations of 5.00% for tier 1 leverage ratio, 6.5% for common equity tier 1 capital ratio, 8.00% for tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and 10.00% for total risk-based capital ratio.” Versus,

“At December 31, 2021, the Bank had a tier 1 leverage ratio of 10.49%, common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 52.49%, tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 52.49% and total risk-based capital ratio of 52.75%.”

 

 

 

 

 

Love on Valentine’s Day

Esther Howland invented the greeting card as a Valentine Day occasion.  Her greeting cards are works of art. A sampling of them can be found at Wikimedia Commons  Search media – Wikimedia Commons.

This beginning of this holiday tradition is described in an excerpt from the Jefferson Educational Society, Book Notes # 31, Love Poems for Valentine’s Day:

“The story goes that while working in her father’s stationery shop she received a Valentine card from a competitor. She thought it simple and unattractive. Saying to herself, ‘I can do better than this,’ she did. She set up a small factory in the third floor of her parent’s home, hired some women she trained in the arts of paper cutting and origami. She soon outgrew the space, opened a factory and in the process created the American greeting card industry.”

After cutting and pasting my own Valentine’s cards for my mom and teachers in grade school,  the day became more personal in high school.  In English literature classes poetry, especially sonnets, were introduced as  the language of romance.  Two examples.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning to her husband Robert Browning:

How Do I Love Thee? (Sonnet #43)

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of being and ideal grace.

I love thee to the level of every day’s

Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.

I love thee freely, as men strive for right.

I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.

I love thee with the passion put to use

In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.

I love thee with a love I seemed to lose

With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,

Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,

I shall but love thee better after death.

Sonnet #  116   by William Shakespeare

Let me not to the marriage of true minds

Admit impediments; love is not love

Which alters when it alteration finds,

Or bends with the remover to remove.

O no, it is an ever-fixed mark

That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

It is the star to every wand’ring bark,

Whose worth’s unknown, although his heighth be taken.

Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks

Within his bending sickle’s compass come;

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,

But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

—-If this be error and upon me proved,

—-I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

A Sonnet Upon Departing

As a memory of high school  poetry exercises and first love, I received  the following sonnet from my girlfriend when I left home in June 1962 for a summer ranch job  in Wyoming.

The sadness which I knew was drawing near, 

And which I feared would grow as you had gone,

That sadness now has come, yet with my tear 

Shines half a smile, like fog at early dawn.

No longer do I dread your last goodby,     

Your parting kiss, your hand’s sweet lingering touch,

A bond will now transport my longing sigh 

To you, dear heart, who’ll surely long as much. 

So happy am I just to think of you,     

Remembering half a hundred joyful days, 

Anticipating half a million new,   

When you return, and laughter skips and plays.     

I’ll miss you, darling yes, but now instead 

of grieving so, I’ll dream of what’s ahead.

 

 

 

 

Digital and Branching Options

As credit unions expand their market footprint, branches remain an important investment for growth.

Recently Credit Union Times reported on this effort by five credit unions across the country. Expanding their existing 75 branch network was Suncoast Schools, Tampa FL which is opening  three new branches in Orlando.  Truliant, Winston Salem, NC is investing in a South Carolina expansion involving five new offices in three years.

The Times story also described new branch openings by Blue FCU, Cheyenne, WY; Utah Community in Provo; and Brooklyn Cooperative FCU in New York.

In Person Matters

If digital transactions and virtual platforms are the future of financial services, why are these and other credit unions continuing to invest in real estate and a physical presence?

Part of the answer is that opening new markets is very difficult to do with a virtual only strategy.  Platform solutions bring individual responses to promotions.  However “seeing is believing” if credit unions want to have a continuing community presence and impact.

However another factor may be the reality that Stores Aren’t Dead, according to a February 10 article in Axios.

According to data from Coresight, “physical store openings exceeded closings on an annual basis in 2022 for the first time since 2016.”   Retailers are on a pace to open more stores at an even faster pace in 2023.

Why?   “While e-commerce platforms helped retailers manage the pandemic — but both retailers and consumers realized the limitations of doing business entirely online.”

Bargain hunters like to shop in person.  The top six retailers opening stores in 2022 were dollar chains and discounters, including Dollar General, Family Dollar, Dollar Tree, Five Below, TJX Cos. and Aldi, in that order.

Those customers would seem an attractive demographic for credit union services as well.

Digital transactions for existing members are an important option for supporting these members efficiently.  But a physical presence is what communicates commitment to a community.  And being there for an ongoing relationship.

NCUA Board’s January Review of the 18% Usury Celling-A Shakespearian Event

Open board meetings are the public’s opportunity to see members officially at work.  Current practice is that all statements, questions, and staff answers are fully scripted in advance.

Even so these presentations demonstrate members’ grasp of issues, their knowledge of credit union operations and their view of cooperative’s role.

The one January topic with immediate effect was reviewing the 18% usury cap on  all FCU loan rates-except for PALS short term advances.

The Missing ALM Context

Setting loan and savings rates is an everyday event for credit unions.

The most important aspect of loan pricing is its ALM context.  The goal is to manage the net interest margin, the key factor in bottom line net income. That’s how credit unions “make their living.”

That fundamental ALM context was never introduced by either staff or board members.

As of September 30, the net interest margin for all credit unions was 2.79% up 20 basis points from the year earlier.   The average cost of funds to assets was 42 basis points.   As an approximation, a loan priced at 18% would have a spread of 17% over the average cost of funds.  Subtracting an average operating expense of 3%, would leave a net margin of 14%.

Loans are the fastest growing component of the credit unions’ collective balance sheet.  The year over year increase was 19% as of September 2022–the highest rate in decades.

There is scant evidence that the 18% is limiting credit union lending options or earnings.

The Board’s Discussion

Chairman Harper reported all three members had different positions on the ceiling.  He supported the 18%. The agency had obtained a letter from Treasury which concluded: As a result, we believe that presently there are not compelling reasons to change the current 18 percent loan rate ceiling for federal credit unions. 

This was the first time Treasury had ever commented on the topic.  Even more concerning was their offer to an “independent” agency:  Treasury is available to consult on any future consideration of the interest rate ceiling.  

Harper said he was willing to review the topic again in April along with the possibility of a floating rate cap.

The other two board members made no reference to the ALM context or operating margins.  Their intent seemed to find a way to give credit unions more leeway.

Both advanced an interesting economic theory: charging more for loans will actually increase demand.  To better serve members who pay high loan rates elsewhere, credit unions must charge higher rates themselves.  The cure for high member loan rates, is higher rates!

This view certainly supports the market’s practice that those who have the least or know the least, pay the most for financial services.

In the words of Vice Chair Hauptman:  Low-income and CDFI credit unions depend upon the ‘head room,’ the ceiling provides above the statutory rate of 15 percent. . . to serve their neediest members.

He then showed a bizarre slide of a personal example of the late fee assessed by a governmental authority when a required payment was not made on time. His apparent point was governmental authorities charge different late penalties which he equated to usury ceilings on loans.  He asked for further research and review of the issue in April.

Hood acknowledged: when you talk about the interest rate ceiling, we really need to think about how this impacts members. He gave several anecdotes such as:

One credit union told me that their concern is that if the NCUA maintains the interest ceiling at 18 percent, as rates continue to rise, they would have to deny potential credit card applications unless the credit union member had an excellent credit score.

NCUA staff seemed to embrace this view that higher rates are the only antidote for higher risk.

The reversion to a 15 percent interest rate ceiling would constrain an FCU’s ability to apply risk-based pricing to higher risk credits and reduce net interest margins in the current rising rate environment. In particular, a reduction in the interest rate ceiling would adversely affect a relatively large number of low-income designated FCUs (LIFCUs) and their members’ access to credit.

Much Ado About Nothing

Since 1987 the board has reviewed and approved the 18% cap twenty-four consecutive times.  All three board members voted for the 18% ceiling extension to September 2024.

This meeting displayed each board member’s understanding and approach to this hither to fore routine event. I can’t wait to see the sequel in April’s meeting.

 

The Most Significant Omission in NCUA’s Performance Plan

At the January NCUA board meeting staff presented the Agency’s 2023 Annual Performance Plan.  It is 43 pages.  With many  outcomes.  As stated in the Chairman Harper’s introduction:  We have identified three strategic goals supported by ten strategic objectives and 19 performance goals. To meet these goals and objectives, the NCUA has also identified 45 indicators to measure performance.

Even with these many details,  the document has a significant omission.  The oversight  was not  mentioned by any board member. The absence may explain why the agency has been so ineffective in overseeing the most vital component of cooperative design.

The Missing Concept:  “Member-owner”

The term member-owner is used once, in the Mission Statement:  Protecting the system of cooperative credit and its member-owners through effective chartering, supervision, regulation, and insurance.

The term is never referred to again.  Where one might expect to see the concept, instead the words “consumer “and “individual” are inserted.  The word member does not even appear in the two highest strategic goals:

Goal 1: Ensure a safe, sound, and viable system of cooperative credit that protects consumers.

Goal 2: Improve the financial well-being of individuals and communities through access to affordable and equitable financial products and services.

Standard Plan Descriptions

The agency self description affirms that “the NCUA is an independent federal agency that insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, protects the members who own credit unions. . .   But the protection throughout is interpreted only as consumer compliance. Nowhere is there reference to member-owner rights, interests, responsibilities or even education.

Here are examples of how the agency describes its responsibilities in various sections of the plan:

The NCUA protects consumers through effective supervision and enforcement of federal consumer financial protection laws, regulations, and requirements.

Throughout the year, the NCUA will continue to adjust its examination program and operations to maintain safety and soundness, protect consumers, and ensure compliance with anti-money laundering laws.

Provide timely guidance to the credit union system and examiners related to changes in regulations established to protect consumers.

Monitor consumer complaints and fair lending examination and offsite supervision contact results to guide consumer compliance program development.

Continue to provide a responsive and efficient consumer complaint handling process in the Consumer Assistance Center.

The NCUA will enhance consumer access to affordable, fair, and federally insured financial products and services through the following strategies and initiatives:

Performance Goal 2.1.2 Empower consumers with financial education information.

No Ownership Role or Protection

Those who originally organized the coop and their heirs who today own the institution, at least in design, are now nothing more than consumers.

Owners’ rights are not part of  NCUA’s oversight.  The agency  protects “consumers” not owners, and safeguards “individual” not owners’ assets.  The agency is nothing more than  a cooperative CFPB with a safety and soundness function.

The Most Critical Function of Owners

In NCUA’s plan, member-owners have no standing, no rights and most of all, no regulatory attention.  This significant regulatory omission is why some credit unions feel empowered to push all of the boundaries of self-interest and business enterprise with actions disconnected from owners’ well-being and value.

Democratic coop design was intended to be a check and balance, the all important governance process that every organization requires to remain accountable, safe and sound.

Even NCUA asserts it has a governance process:  To ensure sound corporate governance, the NCUA will use the following strategies and initiatives: pg 29

The Consequences of No Member Ownership Role

Because of this regulatory omission, intended or otherwise, few credit unions  today  have any meaningful ownership participation.  The organization’s aspirations are only those of the  CEOs’ and boards’ ambitions. That often means business enterprise priorities over member welfare.

Credit unions are not subject to their peer’s competitive reviews as would be the case with a publicly traded bank stock. The institutional practices of mergers, sales and buyouts are not subject to any competitive process. Instead these executive transactions are private deals devoid of member input, meaningful public disclosures, no objective benefit and often lacking any economic rationality.

Just as NCUA has eliminated the ownership role of the member from its purview, so have many credit unions.  Without owners, just consumers, there is no accountability for institutional performance in theory or practice.

A Dangerous Design

That is a dangerous model.  Credit unions increasingly control billions in member funds and their collective savings (equity) in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  They increasingly commit to long term projects such as  subdebt borrowings, 20-year leases, and long term commercial real estate loans. The final outcomes of these decades’ length transactions may not be known until long past the tenure of the CEO who made the decisions.

Today most credit unions provide little to no transparency of their plans, priorities or projects to members.   There are plenty of product and service marketing messages.   But rarely are members informed about management’s goals.

The election of directors at the required annual meeting is fixed.  There is neither a choice for directors nor director statements of their reasons for serving.  Voting is by acclamation.

Without governance and a recognition of the owners’ role, the moral hazard of management decisions using the credit union’s resources increases.   Upside risks all benefit the incumbents; but the downside possibility of failure from a bank purchase, national expansion or fintech investment, means the members or NCUSIF will pay the price.

If one believes CEO/Board self restraint is sufficient to ensure members’ best interests, then they have not paid attention to practices such as; the $1.0 million dollar bonus to the manager of a merging credit union; the $10 million transfer of equity to a private foundation; or the change-of-control payments inserted in senior management contracts.

The list of self-serving actions grows daily.  Where money management for others is required, greed always lurks.

As just “consumers” or “individuals” member-owners no longer benefit from the most important reason for joining a financial cooperative.

Unless or until there is a meaningful acknowledgment  of member ownership and management’s obligations thereto,  the credit union system’s uniqueness, not to mention its soundness, will increasingly be at risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Incredible Chartering Story

The headline tells it all:  This Black Barber Opened The First Credit Union In Arkansas Since 1996.

It is the story of Arlo Washington’s journey to create People Trust Community FCU chartered in  September 2022.   The article in Next City describes Arlo’s journey after his mother died in 1995.  He followed a mentor’s model and became a barber.  His business instincts led him to open multiple shops and organize a barber college.

At the barber college he set aside $1,000 per month from profits to make small loans to the community.  This micro lending service grew until  the lending program was converted into a CDFI.  People Trust Community Loan Fund, the government recognized non-profit, then became the basis for his credit union charter application.

The Story within the Story

The author, Oscar Abello,  also weaves in another, longer tale, of the decline in new credit union charters.  Several of his observations follow:

It’s never been very easy to start a credit union, but it used to be easier and much more frequent than it has been in recent years. Prior to 1970, it was common to see 500 or 600 new credit unions chartered every year across the entire country.

People Trust was one of four new credit unions chartered in 2022; just 25 new credit unions have been chartered over the past 10 years. . .

There are almost always more interested groups looking to establish new credit unions, says Monica Copeland, MDI network director at Inclusiv, a trade group for credit unions focused on low-to-moderate income communities, “but it’s hard to track until they actually get through the process. It takes organizing groups years.”. . .

Or take Everest Federal Credit Union, which is based in Queens, New York and serving Nepali immigrants across the country. Its organizers started their work in 2015 and only recently opened for business. Part of their challenge was the startup capital they had to raise, from donations they ultimately gathered over the past seven years from hundreds of donors across the country.

Each of these efforts has had to go through the National Credit Union Administration – the federal agency that charters, regulates and insures deposits held at U.S. credit unions.  . .

There are multiple reasons for the dramatic falloff in new credit unions since 1970. Now a credit union consultant, Brian Gately worked as a credit union examiner at the NCUA in the ‘70s and ‘80s. According to Gately, the agency gradually lost touch with its purpose over the course of his tenure.

He started out winning awards for helping new credit unions get chartered to serve vulnerable communities in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but eventually left after refusing orders from higher-ups to shut down a new credit union serving a largely Puerto Rican migrant community on Manhattan’s Lower East Side.”

The article presents further examples of the chartering hurdles.  These challenges help a reader understand the miracle that any new credit union charter represents today.

Missing the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs

According to the Commerce Institute over 5.0 million new small businesses were started in 2022.  Only 4 new credit union charters were issued last year.  During the year credit unions announced or completed four to five times that number of whole bank purchases.

Credit unions are not tapping into  America’s inherent entrepreneurial market-based culture.  A system that fails to attract new entrants will slowly mature, consolidate and lose relevance. Other startups will arise  intent on  taking away a declining industry’s  current and future customers.

The article is an engaging description of one person’s efforts to pursue the possibilities of a credit union charter.   It also documents how difficult that process is, especially as it depicts NCUA’s role.

If a reporter who does not follow credit unions as a regular beat can so thoroughly document the new charter failings of the movement, why can’t credit unions see this challenge?

It raises the question as well of how many interested charter groups give up in frustration and look elsewhere for financial services?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Losing the Cooperative Spirit?

This slide is from a November 2021 speech on credit union history at the Credit UnionLeadership Institute.  Facilitator:  Gary Regoli, CEO Achieva Credit Union.

It is a statement of the existential choice every credit union makes, often on a daily basis.

Credit unions continue to lose ground with consumers, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index’s most recent finance study. Credit unions’ score has dropped by one point to 75—falling behind banks for the fourth consecutive year.

Banks now surpass credit unions in nearly every service category as rated by U.S. consumers, according to this year’s survey. On the ACSI’s 100-point scale, credit unions now trail banks by three percentage points. Banks’ overall score (78) has remained relatively unchanged over the last four ACSI reports.

“The 2021-2022 study, which was based on more than 13,500 customer interviews, covers banks, credit unions, financial advisers and online investment. According to researchers, rapid membership growth fueled by the pandemic and ongoing industry consolidation could be affecting credit union customers, though the credit union industry’s traditional area of strength in the annual survey—in-person service—has remained consistent.

“Credit unions continue a long, slow decline in member satisfaction that is now in its fifth consecutive year,” said Forrest Morgeson, assistant professor of marketing at Michigan State University and director of research emeritus at ACSI.”

Source: ABA Banking Journal, November 16, 2022

 

Resume and Eulogy Virtues

Last week I quoted New York Times columnist David Brooks’ philosophy in which he distinguished resume virtues from eulogy ones.

Résumé virtues are what people bring to the marketplace: Are they clever, devoted, and ambitious employees? Eulogy virtues are what they bring to relationships not governed by the market: Are they kind, honest, and faithful partners and friends?

This past weekend I received a copy of a funeral message from a friend I have known since college. His wife of 28 years had died in January.  She had been chronically ill their entire marriage–some of the times were good, but others in and out of hospital.

He celebrated her spirit with these words:

She was the most selfless person I have ever known. I really believe she hung onto life all these years for us, and I hope the rest of my life will be worthy of her sacrifice, because it was not easy for her to stay with us. She gave her life for her friends and family.

Organizations Do Not Have Souls

In the life witness of Jan Karski which I described last week, I quoted his observation that “Governments do not have souls. Only people do.”  I believe his words are applicable to any organization not just “governments” which was the focus of Karski’s anti-Nazi Polish underground activities.

Doing the right thing is sometimes very hard.   Especially when one’s views set them apart from the prevailing practice or beliefs of the organizations in which they work or are members.

Puritan John Winthrop in this lecture (A Model of Christian Charity) prior to sailing for the new world, warned his fellow Puritans that their new community would be “as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us”, meaning, if the Puritans failed to uphold their covenant with God, then their sins and errors would be exposed for all the world to see.

That biblical reference of “a city upon a hill” has been later used by four Presidents to describe their vision for America.

Cooperatives were endowed with the hope of being  “a city on the hill” in a country where individuals were often taken advantage of by the prevailing economic system. That system still exists today.

What the above examples suggest is that credit union design is not what makes the difference.  Rather it is the quality of leaders chosen to continue a firm’s legacy.

Being in the minority, such as living at the boundary between health and illness in the circumstance referred to in the funeral, is never easy.  But examples of resolution and spirit should remind us of the aspirations of our own better selves.

 

 

 

Looking for Credit Union Prophets

In America, the public has traditionally associated prophecy with forecasts about the future.

However their religious and political context  is quite different.  In past and present  societies, they are seen as troublemakers.  Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation describes how this “truth-telling” might be viewed today.

After reading his understanding of prophets, I wonder if the credit union movement could benefit from this voice today?  Or is each credit union’s current profit more than sufficient?

The Prophet from Richard Rohr

“One of the gifts of the prophets is that they evoke a crisis where one did not appear to exist before their truth-telling.

“Prophets always talk about the untalkable and open a huge new area of “talkability.” For those who are willing to go there, it helps us see what we didn’t know how to see until they helped us to see it.

“It’s the nature of culture to have its agreed-upon lies. Culture holds itself together by projecting its shadow side elsewhere. That’s called the “scapegoat mechanism.”

“It seems the prophet’s job is first to deconstruct current illusions, which is the status quo, and then reconstruct on a new and honest foundation. That is why the prophet is never popular with the comfortable or with those in power. 

“Prophets are difficult to have around. No one wants to claim the title or do the work because of it. In this postmodern age, everybody is uncomfortable with prophets. They yell when you don’t want them to. They ask for trouble when you could avoid it. They don’t have a politically correct bone in their bodies….

“Prophets are leaders, but not leaders of their own choosing. Inevitably, they have some sort of . . . encounter. . .They’re quirky and more than a little weird. “

Please share any experience with credit union prophets which you have seen currently.  I would like to share their message.