Tuesday, July 19, 2016

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


AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS...






The NCUA senior staff finds no need to..

"... speak to an audience that does not exist."









Don't turn away, look this problem dead in the eyes.

103 million American Credit Union Members...

"... an audience that does not exist."

(according to the NCUA senior staff's statement directly to the NCUA Board.)


So, if a change is necessary...
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ACT - 1752(d)

"The management of the Administration shall be vested in the Board."

Sam Whitehurst said...

NCUA or FDIC insurance. State or Federal regulation. We need choice. Without choice you get tyranny. Both need to be as efficient and effective as possible so credit unions can get on with the business of doing good in their communities. How much regulation is necessary for a not-for-profit institution? How much insurance oversight is required for small credit union? This is not rocket science, yet will it ever get done? Only if we have good leaders!

Anonymous said...

NCUA's best and brightest, say no more.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really believe they would be better off with another federal agency? Yes NCUA is wrought with problems and changes that the board can make should be made. But you want reality, then you need to know that there will be no choice for you to make. NCUA will remain your regulator and insurer and the board as currently made up with the two boys will not reorganize, change or improve one darn thing. That is life and that is the way it will be. It is what it is.

Anonymous said...

I think you have demonstrated where the problem is and I think the Board will address the problem if asked. Why wouldn't they, it is their statutory duty.

That there is a problem is obvious from the incompetence in RBC we all had to fight against.

Anonymous said...

Sure but who is going to confront the Board?

Who is going to bell the cat?

Anonymous said...

Don't expect you two trade groups to "confront" the board. Everytime they meet with a board member it's kissie kissie. They never "confront" them and point out staff problems and overreach. They are afraid if they do they won't get another face to face.And then they wouldn't be able to write in their daily bulletins or weekly news crap that they "met" with the chairman or bored member. Bottom line, they two are worthless.

Anonymous said...

CUNA and NAFCU have CU CEOs as board members. Where is their responsibility to tell Jim and Dan (especially) to stop pontificating, get off their duffs and act?

We have the same problem with our trade staffs as the NCUA Board has with its leopards. Let's call out our peers who are on the trade boards.

Anonymous said...

You don't have to hunt far to find spotty leadership in Alexandria.

Anonymous said...

CUNA and NAFCU are in a war to see who can produce the most breaking news stories or write the most letters to Congress or meet with more "leaders" to promote their agendas which is..............what?

Anonymous said...

Hey, let's not get away from the real problem, NCUA's Board has the fiduciary responsibility for the management of the Agency if I read the above comment right.

By law they need to address the problem. We don't need to go hat in hand to Metsger and McWatters to beg them to have their staff follow the law and monitor and control the competence of their staff. McWatters is a lawyer isn't he? Did he vote for the RBC rule?

Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

Who is the examiner in the video clip?

Anonymous said...

That is Scott Hunt. He is responsible for the Corporates.

Anonymous said...

Jim Blaine why don't you ask NCUA? You are retiring, the rest of us have got to face the music.

All talk, no action?

Dennis Moriarity said...

How about telling the Trades to lobby congress for "our" version of the FSOC only in this case it would be the Financial Regulators Oversight Council or FROC. This committee would be comprised of the Banking Committee Chairmen from the Senate and House and include senior members from their committees as well as appointed representatives from the institutions they regulate. They would be empowered to censure and/or remove regulators who fail to safeguard or endanger the funds or who refuse to cooperate with congressionaly sponsored investigations of their activities. While this would remove the "independent" nature given the neglect of NCUA in the Corporate fiasco and the looming "medallion" travesty it shouldn't be much of an issue.

Jim Blaine said...

How about if I ask Jim Tussle since the CU I work for is again a full-fledged member of CUNA? Will share his response with you. OK?

Dennis Moriarity said...

Could you ask someone who cares?

Anonymous said...

That's the answer,,,,,,,,,,,another committee.

Jim Blaine said...

What do you think Mr. Nussle will say?