Friday, July 15, 2016

NCUA: An Agency at the Crossroads... Part V

Going to offer up today a little walk down Memory Lane about the fierce debate which occurred in 2014 and 2015 over the risk-based capital rule (RBC) within the credit union movement.  A little refresher course on what the issues were that led to a full-scale, full-throated revolt against the NCUA that reached all the way to the halls of Congress. 

Why the rehash? Because the NCUA is in desperate need of reform and as we've discussed over the last few days the questions confronting us are: 1) Is the NCUA worth saving as an independent agency?

2) Will the NCUA Board step up to the difficult task of reform?

3) How does one demonstrate unequivocally that there is "a clear and present danger" within the agency which requires the NCUA Board, credit unions and if necessary Congress to act - and to act now.

Believe that the NCUA RBC rule fiasco of 2014/2015 offers clear and convincing proof of the severe problems which exist at NCUA.
Why?  Because the NCUA RBC rule failure is recent - this walk down Memory Lane is just a short, one year stroll into the past! The NCUA RBC rule failure was unnecessary given the well-conceived RBC standards already existing both nationally and internationally. The NCUA RBC rule failure contrasts NCUA's weakness versus the well-reasoned competence of its regulatory peers - and those who wrote the NCUA RBC rule are still very much in place ever poised to act yet again. The NCUA RBC rule failure was universally ridiculed and NCUA was forced to recant and rewrite the rule on a professional, economically and logically sound basis - but only after a year of stonewalling and arrogant defiance by the NCUA senior staff.

So, enjoy your stroll down Memory Lane today as the blog is refreshed about every hour with blasts from the past. But don't miss this one critical fact...




Anonymous said...

You have clearly pointed out the error of NCUA regarding the RBC issue. The three member board passed a seriously flawed regulation. But now that the air has been cleared and there are only two, there is no reason why the issue cannot be raised again and revisited. Rather than talk about the alleged competence of the remaining M's why not directly ask them if they are going to take another look and improve what they have done or perhaps vote to repeal the whole package. The trades are standing around with their fingers in their noses praising meaningless rhetoric and speculating on when the new nominee will take his seat.Duh! It's an election year. Do those guys have any sense at all? And the trade publications, lacking the ability to ask the tough questions, continue to print gibberish. Interview Frick and Frack and not only ask them what but when. Ask them each if they have any agenda at all or is it just looking to their next trip into La La land for a good meal and antiquing? Actions speak louder than words and thus far all their has been are the words.

Anonymous said...

Well, the dialogue continues to entertain ...and hit nerves.
The above post is refreshing as the writer outs the trades, trade rags and industry "thought leaders"!!

Let's be specific.
Tell us, specifically, why the "movement" continues to throw good money after bad to:
DDollar...the merger ambulance chaser.
CUNA (this is a book).
Nafcu- whose strategy seems to be to write a retort to anything anyone sense no matter how goofy the fundamental logics. Just love the "analysis" purporting the savings to Americans by "banking" with credit unions. Fantasia...not fantastic.
Hampel- another book.
Just to name a few.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who DO I blame for the fall?