Like A Rolling Stone...

NCUA's very public display
of RBC competence...

Must confess that I've had a great deal of difficulty working up the enthusiasm to go another round on NCUA's miserable mess known as RBC2 - the risk-based capital rule.  The vast amount of time this regulatory disaster has wasted for folks in the credit union movement is simply unbelievable and unconscionable - beyond unconscionable.  

We all intuitively resent having to help clean up somebody else's professional embarrassments, especially when those errors appear to be unforced, unnecessary, and careless; perhaps more bluntly, just plain professional recklessness.

Just plain stinks!

There can be no rational excuse for the world-class regulatory cluelessness of RBC1, nor the "tough 's', no comment attitude" response that followed credit union calls for review and reason.  A "tough love" attitude which was then rubbed in the face of credit union leaders at the infamous "listening sessions" - go back and listen to the recordings of those meetings - again, unconscionable, beyond unconscionable.

And, the only thing, the only thing that finally halted this flagrant, belligerent mismanagement was 300+ Congressmen writing to NCUA "to prompt" them to reasonableness.

And, now NCUA is back, unapologetically, with RBC2 asking for greater authority and discretion which they certainly have not earned and clearly do not deserve.

NCUA, much to the discredit of the entire credit union family, now rightly enjoys the same level of full-faith professional credibility as...

... except that the leadership of Rolling Stone Magazine 
has at least had the common decency 
to publicly apologize - or step down.

 Don't you think it's time you commented on this rule?

regcomments@ncua.go

NCUA: It's become a question of credibility