 |
| NCUA creates Congressional consensus... |
Here's Ms. Matz' reply to Representative King and to the majority of House members who co-signed the letter:
Ms. Matz' Letter from NCUA to Congress on RBC
But, on a happier note, Ms. Matz did call for Congressional action (page 3, pp 4): "To address the concerns of credit unions about access to capital, ...."
Given the haphazard drafting by the NCUA staff of this critically important RBC reg - as so succinctly, brutally, and devastatingly pinpointed in 2000 comment letters; it is with growing caution and suspicion that one must now approach any and all communications from the Agency, even when signed by the Chair. NCUA seems to believe that statements which are "half true" will suffice for the full truth - as long as the "half truth" meets the Agency's agenda.
There are quite a few examples in Ms. Matz' reply to Congress; let's look at just a couple of them...
 |
| Magical !! |
Page 3, pp 2: "Of the 2,200 credit unions subject to the rule as proposed, nearly half would actually see an improvement in their capital levels relative to their risks."
Now let that one seep in a little on you... it's very symptomatic of the "noblesse oblige attitude" that is becoming far too easy to spot at the NCUA.
Here's a little hint: Will your actual CU balance sheet capital or risk levels change in any way the day after this RBC reg is approved? Of course not, your capital and risk levels have absolutely nothing to do with some whimsy or caprice by a - not so astute - NCUA reg writer. But if NCUA truly has some "magical power" to change the actual risk level at a credit union, then the Agency should go ahead and write more rules that will magically "improve" the capital and risk levels of every CU - Why stop at "half"?!
|
| Just "201"? |
Page 3, pp 3: "Collectively, only 201 federally insured credit unions comprise the 3 percent affected by the proposed rule."
Wonder why 2,000 folks wrote letters if only "... 201 federally insured credit unions" are "affected by the proposed rule."? Believe "201" is a good bit less than "half" the truth about how many CUs will be damaged by this RBC rule, don't you?
|
| Expert Opinion? |
Page 2, pp 4: "I am very concerned about the dissemination of misinformation.... These overstated figures are based on a questionable assumption...."
I'll just let you read that little paragraph for yourself; but while you do, remember that the NCUA senior staff have publicly declared that you and your members represent "an audience that does not exist" - and that 2/3rds (more than "half"!) of the NCUA Board did not express any concern about that highly obnoxious "dissemination of misinformation", nor object to that beyond amateurish "questionable assumption"...
|
| The right answer! |
But, on a happier note, Ms. Matz did call for Congressional action (page 3, pp 4): "To address the concerns of credit unions about access to capital, ...."
The 100 million, American credit union member audience that does exist must demand that Congress,
as Ms. Matz suggests, step forward to fix "the mess" NCUA has created.
8 comments:
How true your article is. It is a sad state when we have Matz and her staff now engaging in half truths. As a credit union CEO with decades in the business I have seen some pretty bad Chairmen. But this one trust me I am hearing some pretty unethical stuff that is going on within her office. I believe we should do everything we can to hold her and this rouge agency accountable. Starting as I have talking to my congressmen and want Matz I run everything on my own to be called to testify before the committee. That"s what the industry should be united next in accomplishing. We can get that done contrary to what NCUA believes.
Jim I am interested in your thoughts what do you believe should be the credit unions plan of action to control Queen Matz and her servants.
We must ask that this matter be handled through Congressional legislation - it is that important to our 100 million members and the future of their credit unions.
We need fair, impartial safety and soundness legislation from our democratically, elected representatives.
Should our members trust their future to the folks who issued this draft?
I hope the answer to that question is exceptionally clear...
Perhaps the NCUA chairlady has a future at the Whitehouse; after all, the current spokesman Jay Carney is departing
All joking aside, there is a pervasive culture in our government to engage in evasive language, misuse of facts or downright lying in order to further an agenda.
For the most part, no one is held accountable. The VA thing was different because it hurt something that we can all relate to - those that put it all on the line to protect our freedom.
Hopefully our agency will be held accountable to do the right thing and it will not be like the State Department, HHS , IRS or the NSA. Maybe someone will make things right at the NCUA before we suffer for it.
Couldn't agree more.
NCUA could be the example, could set the standard for transparency, accountability and effectiveness for all federal agencies. NCUA has good people, has the right constituency - non-profit, member owned co-ops, has grassroots political support, has a positive social/economic purpose.
But NCUA's recent record for seizing the opportunity and moving to the higher ground has not been strong... that would take some courage and leadership.
To Paraphrase Senator Carl Schurz:
Its our Agency right or wrong, when its right kept it right, when its wrong make it right.
What is the process and procedure to proceed to implement impeachment proceedings against Matz? Can one expect the trade associations - both NAFCU and CUNA to call for her resignation? The Safety & Soundness of the credit union community is at great risk. Not Interest Rate Risk. Not Credit Risk. We have Leadership Risk. Read the letters the credit union community is in agreement on this one issue.
Alfred Neuman
While you're doing the "halfs" don't forget half-baked and especially HALF-ASSED!
Post a Comment