Posts

Posted on

A Pivotal Week for the Credit Union System’s Future

On Thursday, December 16, the NCUA board will meet to decide a slate of issues that will affect the credit union system for years to come, not just 2022.

The most consequential item is the proposal to approve and implement an entirely new RBC/CCULR capital regulation.

Tomorrow I will share one expert’s  analysis of the capital adequacy of credit unions since 2008.   All the numbers use NCUA and FDIC information.

The data, stress tests and bank comparisons demonstrate that credit unions created and maintained more than sufficient capital during the two most recent crisis, and the unprecedented growth in shares in 2020-2021.

The numbers are tested against actual data.  They clearly document credit union’s superior loan loss record versus banks.

The analysis poses the core issue: How does changing a tried, tested and proven system of capital sufficiency improve safety and soundness?   The rule provides no evidence that it would have in the past, or will in the future.

In fact the outcome is likely to be just the opposite.

If RBC/CCULR rule is implemented in any form, it will place a regulatory burden on credit unions that will be greater than any other rule ever passed.  Every credit union over $400 million (approaching the $500 million complex threshold) and above will have to maintain two different capital calculations under CCULR/RBC.  This occurs no matter which new standard a credit union  might wish to follow. For it will have to constantly monitor which is most advantageous for its circumstances.

Cross industry comparisons will become at best confused and at worst completely useless.   How do you compare a CCULR reporting credit union with one who has adopted the RBC approach with 8% net worth but a 19.5% RBC compliant ratio.

This new burden will fall directly on the members.   Members across the board will lose value for a rule that has no objective validation.

Budgets: Approving Spending Years into the Future

NCUA’s budget has a procedural flaw.  Estimates for the next year’s budgets are based on prior year’s budgets, not expenditures  or what was actually needed.  Therefore assumptions are carried forward, regardless of whether the circumstances justifying prior year’s requests  still exist.

For example one of the budget explanations  is a charge to the CLF as follows:

“total NCUA staffing includes five FTEs funded by the Central Liquidity Facility in 2022”

The CLF has not made a loan in over ten years.   Why should there be a need for any full time staff for an organization  that only manages a billion or more of credit union shares but has never developed a single program or made a loan to assist the credit union system for more than a decade?

Once a position is approved, it never goes away.

NCUA’s budget process is designed to justify spending rather than evaluate whether more resources are actually necessary to do the jobs at hand.

The major budget decisions include:

  • Increasing millions in additional spending charged to three funds plus capital spending;
  • Adding up to 48 new positions in addition to the seven approved at midyear;
  • Approving an allocation of NCUA overhead to the NCUSIF. Will it be based on the percentage of insured savings in state charters or some arbitrary number adjusted year to year without objective validation?
  • Setting the normal operating level (NOL) for the NCUSIF.

The question for the board is whether to direct staff to better manage the resources on hand or continue growing budgets unrelated to actual outcomes and efforts.

Each of these decisions will have significant impact in future years.   Will the NCUA board stop practices that are disconnected from actual facts and analysis, or will it just kick the can down the road?

Read the draft of the NCUA 2022-2023 budget here.

Posted on

A Better Way-NCUSIF Losses and Revenue Management

(Part 3 of 3 on the NCUSIF , A Better Way for credit union share insurance)

In 2010 GAO reviewed the FDIC’s financial statements for 2008 and 2009 (report 10-705). The summary, What GAO Found, contained the following comments:

“Because of a material weakness in internal control related to its process for estimating losses on loss-sharing agreements, in GAO’s opinion, FDIC did not have effective internal control over financial reporting  . . As of December 31 2009 the DIF had a negative fund balance of $20.9 billion and it had a negative 0.39 percent ratio of reserves to insured deposits.”

This was the third negative position for the fund since deregulation. In the most apocalyptic and highly erroneous NCUA projections about the corporate crisis during (and after) the Great Recession, none projected the NCUSIF would ever be in a deficit position.

After these two significant  economic downturns in one decade, the NCUSIF stands tall, stable and resilient.  However current NCUA Chairman Harper has openly called for the NCUSIF to be changed so it can mirror the FDIC-an entirely different financial design.

His suggestions show a  lack of knowledge about how the NCUSIF has succeeded in an environment that has seen every  other federal deposit insurance premium-based system fail.

NCUSIF’s Record in Recent Crisis

The 13-year period from 2008 through 2020 includes two serious economic downturns.

The cumulative insured loss rate for credit unions during this period is 1.5 basis points(bps) as shown below.  The annual losses range from 0 in 2020 to 6.96 bps when the taxi medallion losses were recorded in 2017.

The NCUSIF’s financial design rests upon the 1% deposit underwriting which grows proportionately with the insured risk plus an equity cushion that has had a traditional cap of .30 basis points of  insured shares.

The board is required to manage this equity level between .2 and .3.  If the NOL is under 1.2%, then the board must present a plan to return to this range.  Above the 1.3% cap (or other limit set by the board to a maximum of 1.5%), the board must pay a dividend to credit unions to reduce the equity to 1.3%.

Loss Provision Estimates Way off Mark

The fund has never incurred losses close to this 10 basis point range.   However NCUA’s loss estimates have often been spectacularly in error.   This graph shows that net cash losses reported in audits have no relation to provision expense.

The next chart shows how the much the overfunding of reserves  compares to actual losses.

The yearend loss reserve has fluctuated wildly  exceeding subsequent actual cash losses by over 10 times in multiple years (1,000%).

These wide disparities between actual losses and provision estimates require subsequent reserve adjustments.  These create very misleading financial bottom line results.  The provision expense, subtracted from or added back to earnings does not present  actual loss experience in a timely and consistent manner.

The fund’s structure is more than adequate for insured credit union losses.   What is most ominous is that NCUA seems to have no consistent, objective and verifiable method for setting the loss reserve.  That is a management problem, not a fund design issue.

When the  annual operating expenses of 1.8 basis points are added to the 1.5 basis points, total costs average 3.3 basis points.  As outlined earlier, the most persistent increasing expense is NCUA’s overhead transfer, not the costs from insured loses. This expense should be more controllable but has in fact become an increasing funding source covering almost two thirds of NCUA’s annual budget.

What About Revenue?

Costs are covered by revenue.  In addition to the two costs above,  income is required to maintain the retained earnings portion of the NOL growing at the same pace as share growth to keep a ratio in the .20-.30 equity range.

The math is easy.   An example. Assuming $1.5 trillion of insured shares, a cash loss rate of 1.5 basis points requires $225 million of income.   As investments equal 1.3% of insured savings, the an investments yield 1.2% covers losses.  To pay the 1.8 bps overhead expense adds another 1.4% for a 2.6% yield to cover all costs in the most 13 years.

If  the long term growth rate is 6.5% of insured savings, an additional yield of 1.3% is necessary to maintain equity. Using just the last decades results would seem to require a 3.9% yield to sustain the funds NOL.

But this return on investments is not required in most normal years.  And a far lower yield, as in the 2021 of 1.23%, can still result in a very strong bottom line.  Here’s why.

First, average insured losses at 1.5 bps are much higher than the long-term historical outcome.  The 13-year experience reflects two unusual events: the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and the taxi medallion losses.   If those three years removed from the average, the average insured losses are far below 1 basis point.

In 2021, insured share losses have been zero and there have been net recoveries from previous loss expense provisions.  In 2020, there were nil insured losses. In the previous three decades prior to 2009, insured losses were often zero and far under the most recent period’s 1.5 bps.

Overhead expense can be controlled.  It has grown at the same rate as insured shares (6.5%) because NCUA has transferred a disproportionate amount of its budget increase in every year to the NCUSIF—over 62%.  If the NCUSIF expenses grew at the same percentage as NCUA’s overall budget, this would reduce the 1.8 basis point portion significantly.  Moreover the growth in the investment portfolio shows that in 2021, the yield needed to cover this year’s projected $195 million OTR is only 1 bps.

Finally the equity ratio is a range of 1.2-1.3.   It can and has historically varied between a low of 1.24 to the cap set by the board in the past 13 years.  In other words a 1 to 2 basis point variance in yearend NOL is normal.  And if there is a truly unforeseen event, then the premium option can be exercised.

But the average model does provide guidance to the fund’s most important month to month role of managing the investment portfolio.   As described in prior posts, the NCUSIF investment committee seems oblivious to the current period of historically low interest rates.

As recently as August during the increased market worry about inflation and rising rates, the  investment committee acted by rote. It laddered out $1.2 billion (6.2% of the fund) at an average weighted  life and yield of 5.7 years and .943% .  One seven-year investment decision alone cost credit unions $42 million in lost revenue because of the committee’s timing.

This is not the first time the committee has made similar decisions seemingly oblivious of the historically low interest rate period the economy is passing through.

These kinds of investment decisions, the continual piling on of expenses, and significantly erroneous estimates of loss are all examples of inadequate management.  No fund design can overcome human folly.

A Dynamic Model to Follow performance

Even with a 1.22% yield in 2021, the financial reports through September suggest the fund will in fact have positive net income and grow the equity ratio.  Why?  There is minimal loss reserve expense and net recoveries from prior loss reserves, a lower cost  of operations, and a decline in insured share growth from 2020.

A simple spread sheet model can track all these variables in real time.  The spread sheet accessed here uses the September numbers for the NCUSIF and insured share growth.  It projects a year end equity ratio of 28.19 which with the yearend 1% deposit true up equals an NOL of 1.2819%.

So even in an historically low yielding and poorly managed investment portfolio, the fund’s result is within the designed outcome.

Even Better News

Traditionally the fund’s equity has not included the loss reserve which has been expensed from earnings but not used.   When this reserve is added to the yearend actual equity ratio, then the NCUSIF reserves are even stronger, always exceeding .30, sometimes by as much as 10-20 basis points higher.

The Better Way design works, not because it is perfect, but because it is flexible and aligns resources with insured risk through constant 1% deposit required from credit unions.  It tales prudent management of expenses, careful loss control and conscientious investment management.

To continue NCUSIF’s performance pattern, four steps should be taken:

  1. Audit and present the fund’s financial position following private GAAP accounting standards. Reset the NOL cap to 1.3% and follow accounting practice used prior to the 2001 change in recognizing the 1% deposit true up.
  2. Reduce the OTR to 50% to correspond to the percentage of state-insured shares in the fund.
  3. Update the oversight and transparency of the NCUSIF investments.
  4. Continue to minimize losses to the fund by working through problem cases not cashing out losses problems by sales to outside bidders.

 

 

 

Posted on

A Better Way IF Expenses Are Properly Managed

(Part 2 of 3 on  the  NCUSIF, A Better Way for credit union share insurance)

Throughout the NCUSIF redesign effort in 1984, credit unions had one primary concern with the new concept.  The question was, “If we send this money to Washington, how do we know government just won’t spend it?”

In response the legislation and implementation included multiple guardrails to prevent misuse of the fund by NCUA.  This included a legal cap of 1.3% on total fund size, after which a dividend must be paid; a limit on assessing premiums;  an annual independent  CPA audit following GAAP accounting; monthly public financial reports to the Board; the ability to withdraw the 1% deposit and a commitment to use the fund to minimize losses through 208 and other forms of temporary capital assistance.

Credit union concerns were well-founded.  The NCUA has become increasingly agile in charging the NCUSIF for its operating overhead expenses.

In the 13-year period 2008 through 2020, NCUA has spent a total of $3.321 bn.   Of that amount the operating fee has covered $1.172 or just 35% of NCUA’s expenditures. The NCUSIF has been charged $2.149 bn, or 65%.

Prior to the OTR change in 2001, the fund had never paid more than 50% of NCUA’s operations.

The Fund’s primary expense is for administration not insured losses

As a result, since 2008 NCUSIF’s operating costs exceeded the insurance loss provision expense of $1.880 billion by $270 million.  The primary financial role of the fund is to pay for insurance losses.  The cost have  been primarily through the Overhead Transfer Rate (OTR) process.  This process has been a source of ongoing  manipulation starting  in 2001.

The OTR History

Prior to 1985, the OTR was 33% which was based on the percentage of state-chartered insured shares in the NCUSIF.  In 1985 shortly after Ed Callahan left NCUA, the board raised the OTR to 50% even though the percentage of state chartered insured shares was still 33%.

This 50% ratio remained constant until 2001.  Dennis Dollar, as an NCUA board member and Chair (1997-2004),   made two changes in how the NCUA managed the NCUSIF. The first was making the OTR an annual adjustment, versus a fixed 50%  and secondly, delaying the recognition of the 1% deposit when calculating the yearend NOL.

The first change as reported in footnote 8 of the 2000 NCUSIF audit under the heading, Transactions with NCUA Operating Fund:

The allocation factor was 50% to the Fund and 50% to the NCUA Operating Fund for 2000 and 1999.  On November 16, 2000 the NCUA board voted to increase the allocation factor to the Fund for 2001 from 50% to 66.72%.

The only explanation for the change was that a new study of staff time spent on insurance versus supervision “indicated the rate should be changed to 66.72% for 2001.” ( Page 31 NCUA 2000 Annual Report)   This 33% increase in the transfer was at a time when state chartered  insured shares were only 44.6% of total NCUSIF insured risk.

Since this 2001 break with the long standing 50% transfer, the OTR has been recalculated every year reaching a peak of 73.1% in 2015.  The transfer rate for 2021 is 62.3 %.

The OTR has been the topic of contentious congressional hearings plus countless credit union objections to the arbitrary nature of the process.  See this link for congress’ questioning the OTR.  Even board members have expressed puzzlement with the explanations for how the transfer rate is determined.

Changing the NOL Calculation

The second change made in 2001 also had an ongoing consequence to the fund’s financial position and credit union’s dividend payment.

In 2000 the Normal Operating Level (NOL) was calculated as follows in footnote 5, Fund Capitalization:

The NCUA Board had determined the normal operating level to 1.33% as of December 31,2000, which considers an estimated $31.9 million in deposit adjustments to be billed to insured credit unions in 2001 based upon total insured shares s of December 31,2000. . . The CUMAA mandates the use of year-end reports of insured shares in the calculation of specified ratios and thus dividends related to 2000 will be declared and paid in 2001 based on insured shares as of December 31, 2000, as reported by the insured credit unions.

This was the method used in all the fund’s preceding years. Subsequently dividends of $99.5 million associated with insured shares as of December 31, 2000 were declared and paid in 2001.

But then this NOL calculation,  a consistent process  since 1985, was changed by the Board in 2001 as explained on page 21 if the Annual Report:

the deposit adjustment credit unions submit to the Share Insurance Fund to maintain their required deposit level of 1 percent of insured shares is not recorded until March 2002. In March, the equity ratio moved above the normal 1.3 percent operating level established by the Board. 

This delayed recognition allowed the NCUA to omit the required dividend in 2001 because the actual ratio exceeding 1.3% was not recognized until March.

Since the redesign of the NCUSIF’s in 1984, the adjustment to the 1% deposit had always been collected after yearend (as is the case today), but  still recognized in full when calculating the  December 31 NOL.

This change was discussed in the audited footnote 5 which revised the previous 2000 NOL calculation as follows:

The equity ratio at December 31, 2000, was 1.33%, which considered an estimated $31.9 million in deposit adjustments billed to insured credit unions in 2001 based upon total insured shares as of December 31, 2000. Subsequently, such deposit adjustments were excluded and the calculated equity ratio at December 31, 2000 was revised to 1.30%.

Thus the NCUA board gave itself the flexibility to delay recording the 1% true up versus continuing an  established and clearly understood ratio computation followed for almost 20 years in NCUSIF’s audited statements.

The Impact on the NCUSIF Financial Reports

The annual change in OTR from the long standing 50% and the delayed recognition of the 1% true up have given NCUA greater access to NCUSIF funding.

Since 2008, the operating expenses allocated to the NCUSIF have grown at an annual rate of 6.9%.   In contrast, following the change to a “variable” OTR, the operating fees paid by federal credit unions have increased only 3.6% demonstrating NCUA’s  increased use of the NCUSIF for its total budget.

The graph below shows NCUSIF operating expenses are almost all due to the Overhead Transfer with a different rate set each year.

Regaining Accountability for the NCUSIF

Credit unions were prudent to worry about NCUA’s instinct to spend money under its stewardship.  The NCUSIF is meant to be a financial safety net for the cooperative system. Instead it has been converted to a cash cow  anytime NCUA wants to reach in for more money via the allocation process.

Dividends that would have been paid under the 35- year long-standing 1.3% NOL cap were eliminated when  NCUA simply raised the cap to 1.39 in 2017 and 1.38 in subsequent years.  As many commentators pointed out, there was no objective  data supporting this change.

NCUA’s annual open-ended expense draw compromises the Fund’s primary role as a resource for insurance losses. Before the OTR change in 2001, the NCSIF paid six consecutive dividends. This kept NCUA’s commitment that credit unions could earn a dividend on their 1% investment in years of negligible losses.

Now NCUA takes their toll off the top rather than being limited to 50% a number which aligns with the proportion of state-chartered NCUSIF insured shares.

It is the NCUA board that made the above changes.  Accounting standards can accommodate different ways of presenting financial information.  These statements reflect management decisions, not accounting truths.  The changes in practice described about were not  in the best interests of credit union owners.  Auditors present, but do not approve such decisions.

NCUA’s 2022 budget is up for debate and comment.  The OTR should be set to reflect the proportion of state insured shares, not some opaque, manipulated internal study.  Expense control is a critical for  the proper management of any organization but especially a fund set up primarily to pay for insured losses.

Credit unions  have a duty to  speak up so the Board can right this series of decisions shortchanging the fund’s owners today.

Tomorrow in part 3 I will review the history of NCUSIF losses  to  analyze whether the long standing 1.3% cap and 1% deposit design provide sufficient financial resources for the fund.

 

 

 

Posted on

The NCUSIF is A Better Way– IF Properly Managed

The NCUSIF’s redesign culminating in the October 1984 NCUA board implementation was revolutionary.   This two-minute excerpt is from NCUA’s Video Network of that historical vote:

NCUA Bd Mtg Approves NCUSIF Redesign: A Better Way .

A Partnership

Board member PA Mack summarizes his approval saying:   I’m ready to support this and think it is an outstanding product as a partnership among government and credit unions.”

NCUA wanted credit unions as partners, with mutual give and take, and together the cooperative system created the most successful federal insurance program ever. 

Can Work Beautifully

When approved by a 3-0 vote, Chairman Ed Callahan congratulated everyone for their efforts and commented:  “This is a very significant thing for credit unions.  This system can work beautifully for credit unions in the future. I think the real challenge goes to you people in NCUA now.  The real secret is in the operations.” 

Callahan believed the power of NCSIF’s redesign was that it clearly invites credit unions into “cooperation” now and as long as the system’s integrity is preserved though proper management.

A Three-Year Process

This redesign did not happen overnight.  It emerged due to the failure of the premium based approach modeled after the FDIC and FSLIC funds founded four decades earlier.  This reassessment was documented in a 120 page report NCUA sent to Congress in April 1983. It featured  comments from all segments of the credit union system. Legislation was drafted with credit unions and sent to Congress in 1984.

NCUA actively encouraged credit unions to support the legislative change.  An NCUA video outlined the plan including the NCUSIF’s financial history since 1971-1984.  This analysis was the foundation for creating A Better Way.

In the 1985, NCUA reported the outcome for credit unions following the first year of this new design:

Dividend of 5%: Because of the fund’s performance . . . for the first time ever the NCUSIF paid a dividend which represents about $30 million in equity distribution. . . The NCUSIF has returned in some form almost $270 million to credit unions: the $84 million equity distribution (when calculating the 1% deposit), the insurance premium waiver for last year, the $30 million dividend and leading into the next year, a $90 million premium waiver.  (Source:  Page 5 NCUSIF 1985 Annual Report)

The partnership approach based on transparent communication with credit unions and immediate return created another system benefit. The radical restructuring proved to be the way to something more– an action  that renewed the entire system’s hope during deregulation and that credit unions still benefit from  today.

The Operations of the Fund

The critical aspect of the NCUSIF’s cooperative design, as noted by Chairman Callahan, is how he fund is managed by NCUA staff.  These four primary responsibilities include:

  • The regular, timely and accurate reporting of the fund’s financial position.
  • Prudent oversight of  NCUA’s operating expenses charged to the fund.
  • The careful management of fund losses to ensure the least possible cost resolution for problems.
  • Intelligent and professional management of the fund’s primary revenue source- the yield on its investment portfolio.

In the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis a material change occurred in NCUA’s management of each of these responsibilities—all contributing to an increasingly confusing and misleading presentation of the fund’s financial status.

Today I will focus on the 2010 change from private GAAP accounting to Federal GAAP. Future posts will discuss the remaining three responsibilities.

The Ill-suited Change to Federal GAAP Presentation

From 1982 through 2009, the NCUSIF financials were audited and presented following private GAAP accounting standards.  This was a critical part of the NCUA commitment to follow the same reporting and presentation standards it required credit unions to implement.

Credit unions had agreed to the perpetual 1% underwriting of their NCUSIF deposit. In return the NCUA guaranteed the information to properly monitor the agency’s management of these ever- growing 1% deposit assets.

This private accounting standards in 1982 was a departure from the NCUA’s initial practice of relying on a GAO audit which was often late in completion and did not follow GAAP accounting practices.

Why Reliance on Federal GAAP is Inappropriate and Misleads Credit Union Owners and the General Public.

Federal GAAP reporting was intended for use by entities that receive appropriations from the government.   The NCUSIF receives no government funding.  The  unique cooperatively designed fund relies on withdraw-able member deposits as the principal underwriting  source, not an insurance premium expense levied on credit unions.

In Federal presentation the normal balance sheet categories are divided into Intra-governmental accounts and Public accounts, a confusing description at best.  Liabilities have the same misleading divisions.  The Net Position contains a federally  defined Cumulative Results of Operations, sometimes mischaracterized  as retained earnings.  However in federal GAAP this account includes changes in the net unrealized gains and losses on the NCUSIF’s investment portfolio during the year.

Private GAAP does not include this.  As a result the monthly income and yearly audited statements present a completely misleading number from a retained earnings or equity perspective.

The traditional income and expense information is  renamed as Statement of Net Cost.” This presentation is similarly as confusing and misleading as the balance sheet categories. The presentation begins with Gross Costs , followed by Less Exchange Revenues, with a so called bottom line labelled,  Net Cost of Operations.

In 2020, Federal GAAP reported an NCUSIF  bottom line of a $239 million gain; however private GAAP net income was only $32.9 million.  The outcome is that actual retained earnings do not correspond to cumulative results of operations, thus misstating the true NOL when the 1% deposits are added. This annual over or under presentation of “fund equity ” is shown in the following chart.

Federal government accounting  reporting does not appropriately present the fund’s “equity” at yearend

This confusing presentation continues in the other required financial statements. These include the federally prescribed Changes in Net Position and the Statements of Budgetary Resources.   Neither portrays the data needed to understand traditional financial concepts of changes in cash flows, retained earnings or total equity.  These concepts were created for federally appropriated entities.

To see the full 2020 audit report following Federal GAAP presentation, click here.  Pages 13 and 14 are completely unintelligible versus private GAAP presentation.

The standard Federal GAAP presentation is so confusing that when staff updates the NCUSIF financial results to the board, the income statement and balance sheet are converted  to the standard GAAP income and balance sheet formats.

However even this monthly “translated” accounting practice is a mash up of private and federal GAAP concepts.  For example the most recent NCUSIF update showed  a quarterly net income at September 30 of $58.6 million.  The balance sheet account which would include this gain is called the Cumulative Results of Operations.  That account instead shows a quarterly  “loss” for the September quarter of $16 million.   This $75 million total difference is due to the net decline in market valuation of the investment portfolio.

Two Different NOL Calculations in the Audit

These distortions continue even when NCUA calculates the formal audited NOL ratio at yearend.  In the 2020 audit footnote 13  states the NOL is 1.26%.  This number is calculated by dividing the total Net Position of $18.9 billion by yearend insured shares of $1.5 trillion.

However in the same audited statement NCUA presents a different way to calculate the NOL and whether a dividend is due credit unions:

The NCUSIF equity ratio is calculated as the ratio of contributed capital plus cumulative results of operations, excluding the net cumulative unrealized gains and losses on investments, to the aggregate amount of the insured shares of all insured credit unions.  (pg 134 NCUA annual audit for NCUSIF, emphasis added)

Subtracting the net gain of $511 million NCUSIF net investments  at 12/20 from cumulative results of operations gives and NOL, per the above paragraph,  of 1.228 or 1.23%.   Which number are credit unions to believe?  Which NOL calculation determines the dividend?

Why Readopting Private GAAP is Critical

The confusions and misleading calculations shown above are just some of deviations from private GAAP accounting financial presentation and audit scope.

Moreover the misrepresentation even extends to how the 1% required credit union deposit true-up is included in the yearend NOL calculation.

The recognition of the 1% required capital true up was a settled financial practice until the board chose to change this in 2001.  Today that change continues to distort the true NOL.

For example the traditional method for NOL calculation followed from 1984 through 2000 would result in an NOL of 1.32% at 2020 yearend. ( a retained earnings ratio of .32 plus 1%) This is much higher than either of NCUA’s two reported calculation methods in the NCUSIF audit.

This underreporting misrepresents the NCUSIF’s actual financial strength and would deny credit unions a dividend if the historical NOL cap of 1.3% had been in place.

For users of the NCUSIF financial statements, Federal GAAP is confusing and misleading.  The NCUA in fact continues to use private GAAP in all three of its other fund annual audits and monthly presentations.

“Fairly presenting” the NCUSIF results for credit unions requires a return to an accounting system which credit unions can understand so they  can monitor their investment in the fund.

Tomorrow I will look at how NCUA has changed the way it charges the NCUSIF for its operating expenses.  And the consequences on the fund’s financial performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

When Our Parents Woke Up 80 Years Ago

My mom grew up in Taylorville, Illinois.

This is an EXTRA edition of the Breeze Courier, Christian County’s only daily from 80 years ago.

The headline event changed the world for our parents. Knowing what was coming, my mom and dad eloped to Missouri to get married as there was no waiting period required for a license.

My Dad’s military ID shows his active service from May 5, 1941 to his release from inactive duty on January 17, 1946.

On page 6 of the paper are ads for current local movies. The main show is Keeping “Em Flying starring Bud Abbott and Lou Costello.

The Special Sunday dinner of roast tom turkey at tne Blue Classic restaurant is 50 cents, served from 12 to 8 pm.

Posted on

A Dangerous Way of Thinking: Clayton Christensen’s Final Message

Harvard Business School Professor and creator of disruptive innovation theory, Clayton Christensen described the use of marginal cost/revenue analysis as “a dangerous way of thinking.”

Here is the critique from his case analysis of Blockbuster’s corporate failure:

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

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

Previously I showed how he applied this concept to personal, moral decisions.  How easy it is to give into the ever-present temptation to do something “just this once.”

But he also had great doubt about this approach to everyday business decisions.  I believe his analysis is relevant to some of the largest transactions now undertaken by credit unions:  buying whole banks.

How Credit Union Whole Bank Purchases are an Example of Christensen’s Concern with Marginal Cost Analysis

Twelve whole bank purchases have been announced by credit unions in 2021.  These are cash purchases of all the assets and liabilities of a bank.  A credit union cannot own a bank charter so the existing firm is bought as a single entity,  and any activities not authorized for credit unions sold off.

Cash is paid because credit unions cannot issue stock.  Stock is the more common currency in which interbank purchases are transacted.   The selling shareholders receive shares in the new combined entity.  These shares’ future value will depend on institutional performance and market trends.   There is no such future risk with a cash sale.  The seller can use the proceeds for any purpose.

These sales are off-market transactions.   That is credit unions negotiate the purchase in private, and unless the bank is publicly traded, the terms are rarely revealed.  Because the transactions are carried out without credit union-buyer disclosures, the bank seller controls the critical information about other offers and why the credit union was the chosen purchaser.

Unlike bank sales paid for with shares of stock, there is no  follow-up process  to determine if the promised benefits and/or institutional goals are achieved.   Sometimes the stated purposes is to offer bank customers the advantages of credit union services.   This is circular reasoning. In a purchase customers do not choose to join the credit union, their accounts were sold to benefit the bank’s stockholders.  It might even be counter- productive for the credit union to re-write customer loans purchased if this lowered the rates and thus the ROI on the credit union’s investment.

Without public statements of expected outcomes, the results of mergers become mashed in with all the credit union’s other financial outcomes.   There is no separate accounting of whether the return benefits the current member-owners.

The existing members’  should be informed how their value is increased  when their collective savings (reserves) are paid out to bank owners.  The price paid is often at a significant pick up over the bank’s reported book  or stock value.   This is especially important when the acquisition is outside of the credit union’s current market area and bringing no immediate service benefits.

Christensen’s critique of marginal analysis is most critically a strategic concern.  The prospect of  incremental growth is the frequently  stated or implied  reason for these purchases.   By adding  the existing savings and loans of bank customers,  the credit union will increase scale and incremental ROA and  maybe eliminate duplicate overhead expenses when combining firms.

Moreover the credit union’s net income is tax exempt, a fact that may be used to project enhanced earnings results than achieved by the bank.

Christensen’s observation of “dangerous thinking” is not about the financial math.  There can be more revenue, cost cuts and higher net income when adding more assets and liabilities.   That is not his point.

In these transactions credit unions are buying businesses that are mature.  The bank owners decided to cash out now and seek a better return for their funds versus continuing to grow  the bank’s business.

Marginal analysis to support investments in yesterday’s business models can jeopardize a credit union’s future.   Tomorrow’s financial services are being shaped by new fin-tech models, the growth of crypto currency transactions, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO’s) which operate outside current regulatory boundaries.  This is not what credit union’s are buying in these transaction.

Even the increased regulatory and competitive threats to overdraft (courtesy pay) income and credit and debit exchange fees, could upend the financial assumptions in these purchases.

Credit unions are buying financial firms whose owners believe their best days are over.  These credit union purchases are cash spent on yesterday’s businesses not tomorrow’s. Buying a firm’s old business models might boost short term marginal  revenue  but accelerate a longer run decline in competitive positioning.

Quantifying the Risk

As the number and scale of these transactions grows so does the risk. Most transactions are done at a premium over the latest stock price or a multiple of  book value. One analysis reports  recent sale prices range from 1.3 to 1.9 times book value

In the examples that follow, the three credit union purchasers report total net worth of $1.863 billion in their September 30 call reports.   The five banks being purchased by these credit unions report total book equity of $678 million.  If the agreed purchase price was just for book value, these  bank  investments would average 36% of the credit unions’ total net worth.

However, if the purchase price was greater than book, for example at 1.5 times, then the credit unions have paid out cash of over $1.0 billion, or 55% if their net worth, to these bank stockholders.  The difference between the bank’s book value and purchase price would be recorded as goodwill, an intangible asset, for the credit union.

The examples share common operational challenges and also demonstrate three different primary risks.   They illustrate why increased transparency by  credit unions in these deals is sorely needed.

In each example, the credit unions are playing with “house money” that is the members’ collective savings/reserves. If the risks assessed and returns hoped for are not achieved, then the investment shortfalls will reduce existing member-owners  value. And if the purchase proves totally mistaken, the risk is the entire credit union system’s.

Playing with House Money

Example 1:

Vystar’s Purchase of Heritage Southeast Bancorporation (HSBI) is the largest bank acquisition announced so far.   HSBI is a bank holding company, a recent combination of three previously separate firms, with $1.6 billion in assets and 22 branch locations.

Before the purchase was announced, HSBI’s stock price traded in the $14-$!5 range.   Immediately after Vystar’s offer of $27 per share (approximately $196 million) the stock jumped overnight to $25-$26, where it has stayed since.

HSBI’s assets are only 14% of Vystar’s $11.4 billion.  But this investment would equal approximately 21% of the credit union’s September 30 net worth.    The critical question in this deal: was HSBI woefully undervalued by the market and Vystar negotiated a good deal?

Can Vystar turn around a three-bank conglomerate that had yet to achieve its financial potential?  If the pre-purchase market price is a better indicator of HSBI’s franchise value, Vystar has bet almost $100 million that the market value was under-priced and that it can realize its full value.

Example II:

In early August the $1.027billion Orion FCU announced the purchase of the  $751 million Financial Federal Bank, in Memphis, to “expand its products and services and deepen market share in private banking, residential and commercial lending.”

At September 30, Financial Federal’s $792 million in assets were77% of Orion’s total assets.  This would be by far the largest whole bank acquisition as a % of the purchasing credit union’s assets.

Financial Federal is privately owned.   The bank’s capital at September was $93 million.  If the purchase price were 1.5 times book, this would be a cash payment of about $140 million.   This amount would be 120% of Orion’s September 30 net worth.   If book value was the cash purchase price, that would equal 80% of Orion’s reserves.

The credit union is putting all of its chips on the table with this purchase.  In November a state judge imposed a temporary injunction  on the purchase  at the request of the Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions.  TDFI argued that it is a prohibited transaction under the state’s banking act.

If upheld, might TDFI have done a favor for the credit union?

Example III:

The $7.91 billion GreenState credit union headquartered in North Liberty, Iowa has announced three bank purchase and assumptions in 2021. They are:

  1. Oxford Bank, Oakbrook, Il. $759mn Assets and $71 mn capital
  2. Premier Bank, Omaha, NB. $383 mn Assets and        $40 mn capital
  3. Midwest Community Bank, St Charles, IL. $352 mn Assets and $54.3 mn capital

The three are privately owned and no terms of  the transactions have been announced.   The total assets of the three at September 30 are $1.5 billion with capital of  $166.3 million.

These $ totals would be 19% and 21% of the GreenState’s assets and capital respectively.  If the purchase prices averaged 1.5 X book,  the cash payouts would be 30% of GreenState’s new worth.

What makes this series of transaction different is not the financial risk scale but rather the operational complexity.   Three banks, three different computer systems, three geographic markets and three very different business models  tied into their local communities.

Oxford has six branches and a head office, Premier bank four branches, and Midwest Community, three branches, a loan production office and a subsidiary Blue Leaf with six loan production offices.

In addition to the operational transitions, are the cultural challenges introducing employees to the credit union way of doing things.  The three bank franchises are distant from GreenState’s existing service network and market network.   This brings the additional challenge of introducing the credit union’s brand to three or more, new marketplaces when the prior community legacies no longer exist.

In March of 2020, Greenstate completed purchase of seven branches of the First American Bank in Iowa with total deposits of $470 million, $200 million in loans and 10,000 customers. The transaction was closed despite the objection of the Iowa banking regulator, himself a bank owner:

The superintendent’s approval of the application is solely for the purpose of settling this dispute, and the superintendent does not admit that an Iowa state-chartered bank may sell substantially all of its assets and liabilities to a credit union under Iowa code. Rather, the superintendent reiterates his conclusion that such a transaction is not authorized and that IDOB will quickly deny any future application based on a similarly structured transaction.

Did this regulatory opposition force GreenState to look out-of-state for future bank purchases?

What Needs to be Done

Christensen’s “dangerous way of thinking” analysis cautioned against the temptation to justify investment decisions by incremental short term benefit at the cost of long term sustainability.

No one knows whether these whole bank purchases above will succeed or turn out bust. Or somewhere in between.  ROI will take years to assess.  In the meantime many other events can make subsequent analysis difficult.

An immediate step to improve the soundness of these transactions is to ensure the full details are disclosed to the members whose funds are being put at risk and to the credit union system which is the ultimate backstop.

Keeping everyone in the dark except the deal makers means no one is accountable.   The asymmetry of information in which the seller holds most of the cards puts credit unions at a disadvantage when sizing up a selling bank.  Every bank owner’s goal is to buy low and sell high.

An example: if the purchase is to gain expertise (eg. commercial lending experience) and/or relationships the credit union does not possess, how does the credit union evaluate situations they claim to know little about?

The credit union model expects leaders to be responsive to members.  But when the data and assumptions underwriting these investments is withheld, there is no accountability.  The transaction is “off market” for members; only the bank sellers are in position to decide it this is a satisfactory deal.

The quicker the entire purchase picture is in the open, only then can those whose funds are at risk and the credit union community at large determine whether these deals make sense.

The time to make this a routine disclosure is before one of these deals goes really bad, not after the lesson becomes a Blockbuster-type case for the cooperative system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Two Cooperative Applications of Clayton Christensen’s Final Message

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

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

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

His Final Work

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

His explanation of how this happened:

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

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

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

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

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

The Personal Decision Underlying Every Merger of a Sound Credit Union

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

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

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

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

The Moral Challenge in Mergers

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

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

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

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

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

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

However every “seller” requires a willing buyer.

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

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

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

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

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

The Choice

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

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

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

 

 

 

Posted on

NCUA Board Sets Critical Precedent and An Important Oversight Role for Itself

The process took 23 months.   The appeal required multiple in-person meetings. And oral hearings.  The credit union engaged an attorney. The most senior regional and professional staff at NCUA opposed the petitioner’s request.

In the end, the board exercised common sense.  It adjudicated the appeal in favor of the credit union.  A difference  that, on the record, should have been resolved at agency’s local level.

This event is the first time in a long, long while in which the NCUA board has acted as a true board.   It overturned the actions and judgment of agency senior staff in their most important activity-examinations.   This decision could be a critical turning point in board oversight and staff accountability.

This summary is prepared from the Order published by the agency.

Background Summary

On November 26, the NCUA released a Decision and Order on Appeal of a Region’s and Supervisory Review Committee’s  CAMEL 3 examination rating of a credit union.

The Order provides  dates for the many steps required in this elongated bureaucratic appeal process.  The Order repeatedly presents the explanations for the Regional office’s downgrading  of the examiner’s recommended CAMEL 2 rating to CAMEL 3, and the SRC’s concurrence.

The examination date was December 2019.  The Board released its Order in late November 2021, or almost two years after the exam date.

Reading the agency’s repeated justifications for not correcting a flawed process reminds one of the old joke about NCUA examinations:

Question: What’s the difference between your NCUA examiner and a terrorist?

Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist!

The Board’s Finding and Conclusion on the Credit Union’s Appeal

 

The Finding by the Board

After a de novo review of the administrative record, and taking both parties’ oral presentations under advisement, the Board finds, by a two to one vote, that the Region erred in assigning Petitioner a composite CAMEL 3 rating, effective December 31, 2019.

The Board notes the record in this case reflects several documented errors on the part of the Region, including miscommunications and breaches of NCUA examination procedures. Notably, the credit union was given an exam report containing composite CAMEL 2 language to support a composite CAMEL 3 rating. In addition, the exam report included DORs that did not cite a specific regulation, in violation of agency policy and regulation.25 Accordingly, the Board considers those DORs26 invalid and they are accorded no weight in this appeal.

Looking purely at the numbers, Petitioner’s ratios appear to be better than, or in line with, the average lowest rated composite CAMEL 2 credit unions:

The Board disagrees with the Region’s Asset Quality rating. The solid performance of Petitioner’s loan portfolio infers that the Region’s rating was based on the quality of the borrowers, rather than the quality of the loans. For example, although the borrowers’ average FICO scores were in the low 600s, delinquencies are very low. The Board notes it is much easier to achieve low delinquencies with borrowers with higher (e.g., 750 – 800) FICO scores.

Further, while the Board is not prepared to overturn the Region’s Capital rating, the Board is concerned that the Region failed to articulate to Petitioner why this credit union’s risk profile demands such high capital levels, especially when capital adequacy is defined by the Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act).27 Petitioner’s net worth position of XXXX percent is considered well capitalized under prompt corrective action.28 The Board notes XXXX Petitioner’s net worth was still stronger than statutorily required by the FCU Act.

Additionally, the Board disagrees with the Region’s Management rating. XXXX Management understands how best to work with the credit union’s members XXXX.

Conclusion

The Board finds nothing in the record to support this credit union is “less capable of withstanding business fluctuations and [is] more vulnerable to outside influences.”29 Based on the Board’s full and independent review on appeal, the Board finds the Petitioner’s composite CAMEL 3 rating is not justified. Instead, a composite CAMEL 2 rating is appropriate.

Why This Example Is Extremely Important

The agency process for this extended appeal  lacked any semblance of mutual objectivity. Following are the timelines of the exam and appeal process presented in the Order:

Examination data used:  December 31, 2019

Exam began: February 29, 2020

Report released by Region: June 25, 2020 (six months after the exam date)

Credit Union Board met with Regional staff: July 14 2020

Credit union filed request for reconsideration: August 13, 2020

Region reaffirmed the CAMEL 3: September 11, 2020

Credit union letter to appeal Region’s Decision to the SRC: October 8, 2020

Appeal letter opened by SRC 42 days later: November 19, 2020

SRC held oral hearing with credit union: February 2, 2021

SRC affirmed the Region’s CAMEL 3: March 2, 2021

Credit union filed supplemental appeal letter to NCUA: April 14, 2021

Credit union requested an administrative review by NCUA board: granted April 20,2021

NCUA Board oral hearing with credit union: June 10, 2021

Order issued  assigning a CAMEL 2: September 8th, 2021 (last modified date of November 22, 2021)

For any credit union to persevere during this nearly 23 month gauntlet of appeals and hearings in the face of bureaucratic intransigence is a demonstration of true grit and determination—even courage.

The fact that the Board was willing to listen to the appeal and then reverse the agency’s repeated justifications of its actions, is a noteworthy and critical exercise of Board oversight.  For the Board  directly challenged and changed the Region’s and SCR reasons for assigning specific CAMEL ratings.

Why was the credit union so persistent?  Especially as the standard for appeal to the board is difficult: “the burden of showing an error in a material supervisory determination rests solely with the insured credit union.11”

This criteria means the credit union must show that the agency made a mistake.   Such a finding is contrary to every regulatory impulse that the regional office’s judgments and findings can be incorrect.  It shatters the aura of expertise that is the core of a regulator’s authority.

What the Supervisory and District Examiners Told the Credit Union

The following is from the oral recordings and written transcripts of what the Supervisor and District Examiners told the credit union in assigning a CAMEL 2 rating upon completing the exam:

The Composite CAMEL rating is based on our assessment that you are fundamentally sound. For a credit union to receive this rating, generally no component rating should be more severe than a 3. Only moderate weaknesses are present and are well within the board of directors’ and management’s capabilities and willingness to correct.

While this rating results in an upgrade, as you do not pose material concerns, we have retained a management rating of “3.” This rating indicates some degree of supervisory concern. You will not qualify for an extended exam program and will remain on a 12-month examination supervision schedule.

Bureaucratic Jargon Overrides: “Authorized and Unauthorized Examination Versions”

NCUA Regional staff explained this overruling of the district and supervisory examiner’s CAMEL 2 rating by saying it was an “unauthorized version, erroneously issued.”

The Region’s “authorized exam version” explanation is that upon its review, “the Region found that staff had mistakenly excluded from the examination report closing language that had been approved for release. Noting that the reconsideration determination should be considered an addendum to the examination report, the Region’s September 11 letter indicated that the final paragraph in the Examination Overview that discussed Petitioner’s composite CAMEL 3 rating should have read:        The Composite CAMEL rating is 3”

 “Arbitrary and Capricious”

This overturning of the field examiners’ judgment was the core of the credit union’s appeal.

Petitioner further contends that the Region’s field examiners followed NCUA’s published examination procedure by including their first-hand observations and on-site assessments of the credit union into a draft examination report that concluded a composite CAMEL 2 rating was appropriate, but that same draft examination report was subsequently altered after field staff was “overruled,” to reflect the final composite CAMEL 3 rating that was issued to the credit union. Petitioner argues that “the same set of facts resulting in two different and inconsistent conclusions is by definition arbitrary and capricious and fundamentally lacks a rational and reasoned connection to the evidence.” 

A Credit Union to Be Saluted

We do not know who the credit union is. It takes a special kind of leadership  to challenge regulatory authority when a credit union has been wronged. The process takes time, resources and distracts from the primary job of serving members.  The emotional toll can be telling as well.

Every credit union knows the examiners will be back in another 12 months and the agency is always tempted to prove they were right.   The fact that the board was willing to take this appeal and support the credit union’s position is an important check and balance that has been long absent in NCUA examination and supervisory actions.

A Worrisome Dissent

The dissent by chairman Harper presents interesting logic.  He writes:  “Although the process by which the credit union received its report and rating was inconsistent and flawed,31 an inconsistent and flawed process can still produce a reasonable and supportable result.”

An NCUA chairman seeing an “inconsistent and flawed process” should have set off alarm bells about the agency’s entire examination effort, not to mention the internal review process.

Moreover, if the means to an end are found deficient, how does one justify the end result or, in this case CAMEL assignment? That is the arbitrary moment that many credit unions have experienced in examinations.

For data and logic are the way sound judgments are supported.   This is a critical skill for examiner effectiveness in their credit union dialogues.   It should be modeled at the highest levels in the Agency, not asserted using one’s position of presumed authority.

Following are two additional references from the Order presenting the distinction between regulations and guidance,  which were used by Board:

25 NCUA’s regulations, Part 791, Subpart B, reiterates the distinctions between regulations and guidance and prohibits examiners from criticizing (through the issuance of DORs and supervisory recommendations) a supervised credit union for a “violation” of, or “non-compliance” with, supervisory guidance. The NCUA’s National Supervision Policy Manual requires examiners to cite to the specific section of the Federal Credit Union Act, NCUA regulations, Federal Credit Union Bylaws, or other authority and (if the credit union violates more than one) to cite the highest authority.

26 Of the DORs included in Petitioner’s exam report, 2 of 5 DORs included specific regulatory citations, while 3 of 5 included only general or incomplete citations.

 

 

Posted on

A Compensation Revolution Started by a CEO

Credit unions, corporations and multiple organizations are finding it difficult to fill vacancies. One response is to raise pay for both existing and prospective employees-especially at the lower end of the wage scale.

Some credit unions have announced increases to a $15 minimum starting wage; others have used hiring bonuses or payments for employee referrals.

The majority of these adjustments are at the entry level or bottom of the pay scale.   But is there another way to think about compensation that would start at the top?

What if credit unions were to emulate the example of CEO Dan Price and rethink their approach to pay starting with the CEO?

Reducing the CEO’s Pay from over $1 million to $70,000

Gravity is a  credit card processing and financial services company founded in 2004 by brothers Lucas and Dan Price. The company is headquartered in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle, Washington and employs 100-200 people, including a branch in Boise, ID. It is a private company and plans to stay that way.

In 2015 CEO Price, now the sole owner, reduced his salary to $70,000 and made that amount the starting annual pay for any employee in the company.   The story went nationwide.   Inc magazine reported the action immediately; there have been follow ups to see the results  into 2021.

The company’s efforts were converted to a Harvard Business School case study.   This January 2018 article summarizes the case and concludes with a link to a 27 minute video in which Price and the Harvard professor discuss the underlying reasons at a Young Presidents Organization meeting.

In an April 13, 2021 twitter post, Price summarized the company’s results since the 2015 change as follows:

Since our $70k min wage was announced 6 years ago today:

 *Our revenue tripled

 *Head count grew 70%

 *Customer base doubled

 *Babies had by staff grew 10x

 *70% of employees paid down debt

 *Homes bought by employees grew 10x

 *401(k) contributions grew 155%

 *Turnover dropped in half

Price says a number of employees earn more than this minimum.  As the sole owner, this aspect of Price’s wealth grows as the company value increases.   He explains his approach and why it upsets many in the private sector:

“I did this as a private business owner. It affected no one but myself (I cut my salary from $1.1M to $70k) – the definition of private enterprise. But what I did was very threatening to them because it disrupts the narrative of “CEOs must be paid 1,000x more than their employee.”

Is there a Credit Union Lesson in This Spirit?

The increase in CEO salaries has continued across credit unions even during the pandemic.  Numerous consulting and trade firms provide data and peer comparisons to ensure CEO’s compensation remain competitive and growing.

What would happen if the whole salary paradigm were turned upside down as Price did at his company?  Gravity is a customer service firm where relationships matter. Price is very important.  Success depends on sales and every employee being an entrepreneur and accountable.

Price acknowledges this approach to compensation is contrary to most economic theory and business models.

He believes that once an employee’s concerns over money worries becomes only the fifth or sixth priority in their lives, more powerful intrinsic motivators will become dominant.  These include mastery of a craft, serving a bigger purpose, and autonomy.

When these characteristics spark employee behavior, then the business outcomes he cites can happen.

What Would Happen If?

Critics point out that the majority of Price’s wealth is in his ownership of the company.  So he can call the play Warren Buffett uses.   Buffett has been paid the same annual salary for the last 40 years-$100,000.

Credit union CEO’s do not have Price’s “stock” appreciation—although a small number have cashed out their positions by negotiating significant special merger payments as their credit union’s final act.

Skeptics point out this model would not work in low pay, low margin, slow growth industries such as food service and mass retail. In these industries robotic solutions and customer self-service are replacing traditional low wage employees converting variable salary expenses to a fixed capital investment.

Price’s response is automation makes the need for creativity, marketing and initiative in the remaining jobs even more critical.

Today a number of credit unions share their success with employees through various gain sharing programs.  These do not change the basic structure of the salary scale.

What would be a cooperative equivalent of this approach to employee motivation, accountability, compensation and organizational success?  Or as Price alluded, would this change be too disruptive of the existing narrative about how credit union CEO’s are compensated?

What would  be credit union member-owners reaction?   How might such a plan influence the way employees talk about the cooperative advantage with members?

Are there examples of credit unions  aligning compensation at all levels following a cooperative approach to this challenge?

I would be glad to share any examples incorporating this innovative spirit.

Posted on

Two Reasons Mergers Fail to Advance the Cooperative System

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

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

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