Question for Debbie Matz

As reported in CU Journal on February 1,2012 it is the position of NCUA as put forth by David Marquis that NCUA examiner findings are based upon individual judgment and no further regulation or “standards” need to be instituted.  

During the town hall meetings surrounding the failure of WesCorp, we were told that the agency was powerless to stop what they were doing.  You stated that the agency had no jurisdictional reason to curtail WesCorp’s investing practices. 

How do you reconcile these two statements?  Either NCUA had all the power they needed and failed, or they were powerless because there were no standards.   

Yet you argue for no standards.

Please comment.

Big Surprise! No standards are being applied to your NCUA review!

According to a recent post in the CU Journal:  "Marquis noted that examiners’ finding are currently based on individual judgment and sound industry practice and the proposals in the bill would require NCUA and the bank regulators to develop standard measurements and other regulations to provide examiners with sufficient support for their judgments."

In Regulator-talk... that means "We call what's right or wrong, based upon how we see things... and our 20-something year old's with 2 whole weeks of training are eminently qualified to render an opinion as to what's right or wrong."  "Standards?  We don't need no stinking standards!... why that would have prevented WesCorp, US Central, Wescom, Arrowhead... and a whole host of other notable cu failures while we were  busy cashing our paychecks watching over their operations."  "Why, good grief, if there were standards, cu's could tell us to go pound sand when we give them our sage advise."  "Why the whole concept is unthinkable"...   "We are large and in charge, until we appear in court; then we are a small agency represented by an incapable attorney who can't win a case no matter how much of a slam dunk it is!"

What they REALLY are saying is - We don't want to be held accountable!  Good for CU*Answers and their putting forth the petition about CU Rights.

And they wonder why we shake our heads at NCUA?

Risky Business – Sales culture in credit unions

Running an efficient and profitable credit union is likened to running a marathon:  It’s a long haul and your strategy needs to change with the changes in the course.   Some folks have lost sight of the course change.  Question – “Do you think that the go-go-go of the sales culture caused in some larger part, the debacle of 2007?”  Which begs the next question – “Can the practice that caused the problem be used to solve the same problem?”  America over-binged.  Most folks have seen the light of that and have taken steps to correct their wild spending.  And, at these rates, the best return on investment is to reduce debt.  Better to pay off a 8% (or higher) loan than to leave the same monies sitting in an account only paying 25 basis points.   So, now the clash.  Credit unions are to serve the best needs of their members.  What happens when the best needs of the members cause the CEO to lose out on a bonus, because the “numbers” weren’t met for his/her payout?  Unfortunately, as we’ve seen our ranks infiltrated by bankers, the most common answer is to “full steam ahead” “give me my bonus”.   Shame on these people!  Go back to your bank and get the public payout and the just deserved wrath of consumers everywhere.   Being a credit union used to mean something.  It’s time we held folks responsible for their bank-like actions.   Luckily, it’s not necessary to actually have to call these folks. NCUA is at their doorsteps as we speak; asking for a Net  Worth Restoration plan or presenting a letter explaining how XYZ cu will now be running what used to be your shop.