All I Want For Christmas Is...

Have asked Santa for a weed eater - with a "comment wacker attachment" - for Xmas. More heat than light generally in yesterday's tirades!  Easiest way to get a "blog day off" is to let the "commentariat"  run free . Will try to get back to the basics...

Some commenters felt that I was trying to avoid the reference to the performance of SECU in "September, 2011". Honestly wasn't sure how that was relevant, particularly since it was the year following the greatest economic downturn in the U.S. since the Great Depression.  Not exactly a "normal, random, average" year to choose!

But reluctantly, did go look up the official NCUA data for September, 2011. Here's the official performance record of SECU vs. its peer group (aka "industry average"!): 

["red" = better performance]

Delinquency:    SECU:    +3.75%    Peers:   +1.51%
Charge-offs:     SECU:    +0.25%    Peers:   +0.90%
Net-op. costs:   SECU:    +1.64%    Peers:   +2.52%

Growth in:
Net Worth:       SECU:   +13.93%     Peers:    +8.55%
Deposits:          SECU:   +10.78%     Peers:    +7.15%
Loans:              SECU:    +5.06%      Peers:    +1.86%
Investments:    SECU:    +4.96%      Peers:     +3.76%
Assets:             SECU:    +12.13%    Peers:     +6.69%
Members:         SECU:    +25.59%    Peers:   +20.28%

Again, not sure why one would pull a single ratio out of this particular year to challenge SECU performance. Would you?

Last 3 years offer much clearer, more obvious examples!

As they say: "Can't see the forest for the weeds!"
 

SECU: The "New/New" Launched In Haste, Leaving A Bad Taste?

"New" Coke = "New/New" SECU?

  "Déjà vu all over again"? - Yogi Berra

[Comments active- very!]

😎 We've been taking a look over the last few days of examples when strategically questionable "cultural changes" at successful companies have - unhappily - led to some "unintended consequences". Here's the "classic"!   

Just to refresh your memory, the Coca Cola Company in 1985 rebranded one of the top 3 corporate images in the United States - if not the world - "by changing the formula" for it's best selling soft drink, Coke.

The Board and senior management at Coca-Cola were so smugly certain of their wisdom that they failed in their due diligence. The Board didn't feel it was necessary to ask consumers what they thought or to explain why "the new" was necessary.  It took less than 90 days for the Coca Cola Board to rescind its disastrous decision - it was an avoidable, very public, very costly mistake. 

Don Keough, the CEO of Coke at the time, said: "When senior leadership made the decision to change the formula, they underestimated the deep personal attachment people had to Coca-Cola. As an employee, it was an uncomfortable and almost surreal position to be in... it was sort of like we were starring in a bad movie." [At least the leadership "owned-up" and adjusted!]

At SECU - over three years later - it remains unclear to most SECU member-owners what exactly the "new/new" SECU actually means... improvements in cost of operations, quality of service, overall performance are not readily apparent. 

How much more time will be necessary for the "new/new" results to become apparent? It only took the Coca Cola Board ninety days "to see the light".

Why not just start talking honestly about it to us as your fellow members...

 

Why would the SECU Board be afraid to do that?.