Budget-wise: It's always a "good year" at the NCUA! |
As noted, the NCUA is abusing the overhead transfer rate (OTR) to fund its "Goodyear", good-timin' operating budget. By draining the cooperative share insurance fund's (NCUSIF) earnings, NCUA eliminates any need for fiscal, budgetary responsibility and transparency in its operations. With the skimming having risen from 25% of budget to 71.8% of budget, NCUA has acquired an addiction, an unslakeable thirst for fiscal sleight-of-hand - funded by the NCUSIF.
The conflicts of interest for the NCUA, in the dual role of federal regulator and federal insurer, are numerous. The Nation's last experience with how dual regulator/insurer conflicts of interest "get played out" was when the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Fund (FSLIC) had to be bailed-out, at great cost, by the American taxpayers in the 1990's. Deja vu all over again?
But, let's take a quick look at another of NCUA's "dual roles" in managing the NCUSIF on behalf of the NCUSIF's owners - America's Credit Unions and their 100 million individual members....
Capital markets' tetes-a-pointe |
NCUA's capital market robusterians still rely on out of date tools like "net economic value" (NEV) to hype-up imaginary interest rate risk (IRR) at solid credit unions. The favorite little, schoolyard-bullyboy, NEV tactic is an "up 300 shock" test. The shock test estimates the loss or gain in value of an asset if rates were to jump up by 3% ("300 basis points") overnight - much as Chairman Matz has been predicting ad nauseum.
Want to guess what happens to NCUA's
$11+ billion NCUSIF investment portfolio
in an "up 300 NEV shock test"....
The LOSS in value to the NCUSIF
would be -$1.384 BILLION!!!**
"Shocking", isn't it !!!
Simply "Shocking"!!!
NCUSIF: IT HAS BECOME A QUESTION OF COMPETENCE
- AND CONFIDENCE.
NCUSIF: IT HAS BECOME A QUESTION OF COMPETENCE
- AND CONFIDENCE.
** Valued at market as of 5/12/2015.
4 comments:
What happens is a special assessment on credit unions to cover the loss!
Out of touch, and out of (their) mind.
CUs and banks haphazardly played right into the federal government hand with the eagerness to go to $250k deposit insurance.
Now NCUA has 250% more of our money to misuse.
If the ABA, CUNA, etc really represented FIs, they would be pushing for lower deposit insurance.
Only insurance companies benefit from selling more insurance than is needed.
The 300 bps instantaneous, across all maturities rate shift has never in the past, and never will never in the future, happen. The fact that all ALM analysis starts with this non-starter calls into question all of the other worthless output.
What is magical about 300 bps? Who chose 300 bps?
Why do we use 300bps when the prime rate is 10.0% APR and 3.25% APR?
Post a Comment