Least most of us "normal" males hope so!
Probably a good time to stop and address the recurring reader comments which suggest that NCUA's budget should be compared to the budget of the FDIC, based on the asset size of credit unions vs banks examined.
|The number of credit unions continues to fall year after year.|
WARNING: "ASSETS EXAMINED = EFFICIENCY"
- AIN'T TRUE, DON'T GO THERE!
Let me suggest that "size truly doesn't matter" - in fact, size generally doesn't matter at all - in capturing the "risk" profile of a credit union. Regulators examine to monitor the level of "risk" at an institution, not the volume of assets. Actually, it's pretty clear that the larger the credit union, the less likely the CU is to create a loss for the NCUSIF. The Agency's own data proves that fact:
NCUA Board member Mark McWatters has pointed out on several occasions over the last year, that the vast majority of recent NCUSIF losses have arisen from fraud losses at smaller CUs,
where controls and compliance more frequently break down. But, before we "run off half-cocked", do remember that less than 1% of all credit union assets are in credit unions rated "CAMEL 4&5", less than "safe and sound".
Small and large alike, credit unions pose little risk to the NCUSIF and no risk to the financial fabric of the Nation. But the NCUA is "in a bind" structurally and budget-wise, as the number of credit unions continues to plummet.
Clearly if NCUA can't shift the budget dialogue to "asset size = greater risk" then the Agency will have to face the unpleasant task of reducing its budget to reflect the statistical and economic reality that monitoring fewer, larger credit unions in an all electronic, cyber-digital world requires very few staff - and not the staff which the Agency currently employs.
But facing up to the reality that:
- too scary!
CU Asset Size ≉ NCUSIF Risk
ACCOUNTABILITY - COMPETENCY - TRANSPARENCY