Running The Numbers...

Le Pew?

NCUA statistical and econometric machinations are coming under increasing scrutiny. The strong whiff of "quantitative manipulation" and "political calibration" 
is becoming a "statistical stench". Not an unusual suspicion - nor ultimate outcome - for any organization which views itself as immune from, and unaccountable to the people it serves. 

"Stochastic" Wild Ass Guess!

NCUA has no published, rigorously challenged, standard baseline for its "analyses" of individual credit unions, nor the industry as a whole. Predictions and forecasts are at best presumptive, with no independent internal nor external challenge; which might be acceptable, if NCUA's gnomadic robusterians were "world class rated". No such ratings have as yet been identified. 

If there is no baseline, one might infer their analyses are baseless - right?       

Of equal note, NCUA most frequently focuses on comparisons of peer groups, cohort segments, regression analysis, normalizing "bell curves", computing historical trends and calculating medians - all variations on computing an average - that little bit of arithmetic even you and I mastered in third grade!

Here's an important refresher for you on "averages":


BASE LINE:

>> WORST > BAD > POOR > MEDIOCRE > GOOD > BETTER  > BEST >>

PLEASE NOTE:

"On average, being mediocre is less than good!"

That's true for credit unions; and equally true for "gnomadic robusterians" and their practices!