Monday, January 13, 2014

NAFCU - In The Hunt On NCUA...

Regulatory "guidance"?
Talked a bit last week (1/09/2014 post) about the risks which arise for credit unions from an insular, isolated and detached regulatory agency ("you know who"!)

But to be clear, in case you think this is just about NCUA bashing, the same risks arise in any business, in any position of authority or responsibility.  Leadership can never be about "democratic consensus", nor "kumbaya unanimity" - legitimate differences and disagreements do exist; but "First Do Know Harm" should be a defining principle and priority in any strategic decision.

Which brings us back to that "insular, isolated, detached regulatory agency"...

Miz Hunt:
"Enough is enough."
The latest, vocal critic of what appears to be a noblesse oblige, regulatory regime at NCUA is Carrie Hunt, the General Counsel over at the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU).

In a recent "Letter to the Editor" at CUTimes Ms. Hunt made the following comments about the long rumored, long awaited, long feared "new capital regulations" to be issued by the NCUA.

"We have asked the agency to show us why new capital rules are necessary.  We asked to be included in the discussions prior to any rule making.  Yet the agency plodded forward with its look at capital rules, keeping everyone in the dark as to what exactly it would propose."

"NAFCU supports a risk-based capital system for credit unions.  But we need Congress to make statutory changes to achieve a fair system.  What we do not support is NCUA's effort to force credit unions to hold more capital as a substitute for appropriate examinations or to address mismanagement."

"At NAFCU, we believe "enough is enough"."

If "perception is reality" is this the "reality" NCUA seeks ….??? 


Anonymous said...

Ms Hunt deserves and award for finally telling the Empress has not clothes! Never supported the concept that the trades adopted in the early 2000 of a get along to go along strategy with NCUA.

Only through a vigorous debate on any issue will there come a remote chance of a proper solution.

Capital for Capital sake is not appropriate. Banks still have different risks and more Capital in credit unions is not necessarily better. Actually, could be considered a misappropriation of member's money. The Board of Directors has a duty to assure an appropriate reserve be maintained and after that the excess belongs to the members.

Stuart Perlitsh said...

Finally, NAFCU has stood up to the NCUA. Tell me, where is CUNA on this issue? CUNA CEO Bill Cheney was a WesCorp FCU & USCentral FCU director before they both were placed into NCUA conservatorship. Tell me much more capital did those Corporate FCU's require in order to avoid conservatorship? Capital was not the Corporate FCU problem it was incompetent manangement. As defined by NCUA CAMEL - the M in CAMEL represents both paid management and the credit union board of directors. Where is Bill?