If there are any facts presented at the meeting which were not accurate, could someone please share. But no matter, I want to thank you all for your efforts to take our credit union back.
Money talks and the board sure spent plenty of the members money getting re-elected. Everyone enjoy your tier based rewards credit cards! Seems like I don't align with most other members needs or ideals anyway if that's what everyone is excited about. It's not people helping people, it's some people getting ahead. That's not at the heart of the cu movement and SECU set sail on that yacht with Jim Hayes a few years ago. Thank you to everyone who worked so hard and tried on this!
Will we ever know how many member dollars went to promote incumbent board candidates and harangue members into voting for incumbents? Given the huge increase in ballots cast I wonder if we'll ever know how many were cast from the same IP or arrived in unmarked boxes in the moddle of the night.
I never had any idea that the existing board was so increibly popular in their decision to silence Members and abandon decades of credit union principles and practices.
Nonsense. The challegers had more FB ads and a bigger social media presence from what I saw. These ads propogated misinformation originating from this blog. "Decision to silence"? Most of the silencing I have seen is on this blog.
@5:18. But the members didn’t pay one red cent for the challengers’’ ads or campaigns. They did however pay for the incumbents’ ads and videos, etc. You’re missing the point.
Thanks to all for the hard effort! It’s an uphill battle when they’re using the members money to pay for advertisements and mailed ballots to get votes for the incumbents. We live to fight another day!
If 20,000 people voted to change the disastrous direction of the current board of directors, maybe 20,000 people can make a new credit union. I admit I don't know much how that's done, but if enough of us are interested, we can find out. SECU started with fewer than that.
it feels like SECU as a cooperative is dead. Leigh Brady's presentation, guffaws/ya knows, and inability to answer even her pre-selected questions let me know that she and the board will continue serve the their interests, which don't represent many SECU members. "Awright?"
The silence after the results were announced spoke volumes. That room is full of employees and volunteers, people who are very invested in SECU. It is clear the board does not have the confidence of the people they need it from the most.
'Those employees are free to leave at any time.' spoken like a true EV manager of SECU ... have you helped anybody today or just yourself to the free donuts and coffee?
That says it all, doesn't it? Apart from your disregard for others, as a practical matter, the board does need the employees to believe in what they are doing. The employees do the actual work, remember?
The board doesn’t care what the employees think. Now that they got the votes, they are going to treat their staff like s***. Micromanaging, KPIs, Quotas, reduction of quality work schedules, reduction of hiring more branch staff, reduction of full time staff(more part time so they don’t have to pay benefits), ITMs will in time reduce the amount of tellers per branch, AI to monitor and control workers, managers will be forced to micromanage staff more…hey if they don’t do any of this! The staff will be happy! Treat your staff good! Make this a place where people want to retire at! Don’t become a meat grinder for employees like Wells Fargo and Bank of America
Did anyone else notice how many times they took a bad stat or unpopular policy and justified it by saying that sometime in the past, it was like that? Delinquency sucks, but it has sucked before, so it's cool. No speaking at the meeting apparently happened once in the past, so we should all think it's fine now.
@11:38... there has been much discussion about delinquency and it's rapid rise. critics point to RBL as a for it and have criticized management when they say the trend is not unique to SECU. Her point was DQ was a focus, it's not unique to SECU and that implicitly it should be higher than others because it reflects lending to those with lower credit scores that others don't do.
I have no new issue with her comments on that. You're warm, though. She presented accurate data. Missing context, however, is the effect of the mortgage product. It's a high delinquency but low c/off product. SECU has a lot higher mix of mortgage loans than others, and the TOTAL loss rate should be far lower than other CU's as a result. So while her message was that we are tracking with peers - true on aggregate loss rates. However, if you look at auto loan charge-offs, while they have trended up for all, the rate of increase for SECU is far higher than others, and SECU has auto losses 1.5-2x the industry average. So we are NOT following the industry trend on the auto product. That's a direct result of the centralization debacle, which is one of the biggest operational issues of the last few years. Either they didn't get a question on the topic of collections and high losses, or they chose for it to be one of the questions they didn't answer. I hope the Board gets this specific detail, can isolate the effect of mortgage compared to peers, and holds management accountable to fix it.
@1:44. My comment was sort of about something else, though not well explained. It was more about the irony and the the underlying idea that they very much want focus on change, but when that change is unsuccessful or unpopular, they fall back to blaming or referencing the past as support or justification.
However, I like where you went with it and agree with your reply. I’d be very interested to see those same charts with the mortgage product broken out. I feel like the narrative would have to be different if delinquency were properly analyzed as distinct products. She made a choice to use what she used (aggregate numbers) because she could have a better narrative that way. I’m sure that was on purpose and I do find that to be misleading. I also found the Cash App answer to be misleading. That was indeed an intentional fraud perpetrated by the members, but she left out the part where an internal (or series of them) failure allowed it to happen at such scale and have such a large consequence.
@5:04.. you said it better than me. i understand what she was trying to do. there is a narrative she was trying to combat that losses have always been lower than peers, and one rate for all is why. Or related, that RBL has caused higher losses. Neither is true. If you unpack by product and account for loan asset class mix, going back many, many years, both mortgage losses and auto losses were / are higher than peers. And losses already escalated before RBL was implemented. RBL unequivocally has not caused higher losses. Lots of good arguments against RBL, but that isn't one of them. Members were absolutely misled with the notion that SECU is simply following industry trends and is somehow outperforming the industry on losses. I try to take what is said at face value, and the data was correct, but knowing LA has all this detail, unfortunately I think we were intentionally misled. I just hope the Board sees this information.
If there are any facts presented at the meeting which were not accurate, could someone please share. But no matter, I want to thank you all for your efforts to take our credit union back.
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment. Have you ever considered if the “facts” posted on this blog were accurate?
DeleteSurprised he's even allowing these comments that don't fit his narrative.
DeleteThe membership has spoken.
ReplyDeleteNot really. They just spent tons of money and won
DeleteMore members voted than ever before. Which is great and something EVERYONE should want.
DeleteMoney talks and the board sure spent plenty of the members money getting re-elected. Everyone enjoy your tier based rewards credit cards! Seems like I don't align with most other members needs or ideals anyway if that's what everyone is excited about. It's not people helping people, it's some people getting ahead. That's not at the heart of the cu movement and SECU set sail on that yacht with Jim Hayes a few years ago. Thank you to everyone who worked so hard and tried on this!
DeleteThe members weren’t educated on what the board really wants to do. The massive campaign spending paid off.
DeleteWill we ever know how many member dollars went to promote incumbent board candidates and harangue members into voting for incumbents? Given the huge increase in ballots cast I wonder if we'll ever know how many were cast from the same IP or arrived in unmarked boxes in the moddle of the night.
ReplyDeleteI never had any idea that the existing board was so increibly popular in their decision to silence
Members and abandon decades of credit union
principles and practices.
Nonsense. The challegers had more FB ads and a bigger social media presence from what I saw. These ads propogated misinformation originating from this blog. "Decision to silence"? Most of the silencing I have seen is on this blog.
DeleteSECU cares had a whole instagram and FB page.
Delete@5:18. But the members didn’t pay one red cent for the challengers’’ ads or campaigns. They did however pay for the incumbents’ ads and videos, etc. You’re missing the point.
DeleteThought Brady sounded uptight and angry today. Would like to see the CEO a little positive at the annual meeting for all her “success”
ReplyDeleteReally? I didn’t get that impression at all.
Deleteit all depends on what kind of glasses you wear, rose colored glasses tend to have that affect.
DeleteAre you serious? She was dismissive. Rolled her eyes and huffed and puffed. She was very annoyed with the questions.
DeleteI agree. The tone of Leigh's voice, and the tone that the member questions were read in felt dismissive and petulant to me.
DeleteTo be fair some of the questions were embarrassingly bad and uninformed.
DeleteThanks to all for the hard effort! It’s an uphill battle when they’re using the members money to pay for advertisements and mailed ballots to get votes for the incumbents. We live to fight another day!
ReplyDeleteIf 20,000 people voted to change the disastrous direction of the current board of directors, maybe 20,000 people can make a new credit union. I admit I don't know much how that's done, but if enough of us are interested, we can find out. SECU started with fewer than that.
ReplyDeleteunicorns don't survive in this world ... they're not 'allowed'
DeleteHumpty Dumpty sat on a wall
ReplyDeleteHumpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again
The downfall will continue for the "little people"
SECU...There is no difference.
ReplyDeleteBINGO! We have a winner!!!
DeleteWho won?
ReplyDeleteNot the member/owner of the credit union movement!
DeleteThe members lost
DeleteApprox 58,000 members would disagree
Delete"Approx 58,000 members would disagree"
Deletethe boards A paper friends ...
wow, the board must have so many friends that ALL have A paper rate! How realistic!!
DeleteThe members have spoken. We are now just another company. It was great while it lasted.
ReplyDeleteHere's a question, do they plan on spending 7 figures of member's for each election from now on?
ReplyDeleteYou sow 'industry standard' you reap 'industry standard'.
ReplyDeleteit feels like SECU as a cooperative is dead. Leigh Brady's presentation, guffaws/ya knows, and inability to answer even her pre-selected questions let me know that she and the board will continue serve the their interests, which don't represent many SECU members. "Awright?"
ReplyDeleteThe silence after the results were announced spoke volumes. That room is full of employees and volunteers, people who are very invested in SECU. It is clear the board does not have the confidence of the people they need it from the most.
ReplyDeleteThose employees are free to leave at any time.
Deletethe silence of the lambs ...
Delete'Those employees are free to leave at any time.'
Deletespoken like a true EV manager of SECU ...
have you helped anybody today or just yourself to the free donuts and coffee?
"Those employees are free to leave at any time."
DeleteThat says it all, doesn't it? Apart from your disregard for others, as a practical matter, the board does need the employees to believe in what they are doing. The employees do the actual work, remember?
The board doesn’t care what the employees think. Now that they got the votes, they are going to treat their staff like s***. Micromanaging, KPIs, Quotas, reduction of quality work schedules, reduction of hiring more branch staff, reduction of full time staff(more part time so they don’t have to pay benefits), ITMs will in time reduce the amount of tellers per branch, AI to monitor and control workers, managers will be forced to micromanage staff more…hey if they don’t do any of this! The staff will be happy! Treat your staff good! Make this a place where people want to retire at! Don’t become a meat grinder for employees like Wells Fargo and Bank of America
DeleteI’m a credit union employee, so yes, I do remember who does the work. Do your job, serve the members, and quit bitching. Or go work somewhere else.
Delete@1:15pm bootlicker
DeleteDid anyone else notice how many times they took a bad stat or unpopular policy and justified it by saying that sometime in the past, it was like that? Delinquency sucks, but it has sucked before, so it's cool. No speaking at the meeting apparently happened once in the past, so we should all think it's fine now.
ReplyDelete@11:38... there has been much discussion about delinquency and it's rapid rise. critics point to RBL as a for it and have criticized management when they say the trend is not unique to SECU. Her point was DQ was a focus, it's not unique to SECU and that implicitly it should be higher than others because it reflects lending to those with lower credit scores that others don't do.
DeleteI have no new issue with her comments on that. You're warm, though. She presented accurate data. Missing context, however, is the effect of the mortgage product. It's a high delinquency but low c/off product. SECU has a lot higher mix of mortgage loans than others, and the TOTAL loss rate should be far lower than other CU's as a result. So while her message was that we are tracking with peers - true on aggregate loss rates. However, if you look at auto loan charge-offs, while they have trended up for all, the rate of increase for SECU is far higher than others, and SECU has auto losses 1.5-2x the industry average. So we are NOT following the industry trend on the auto product. That's a direct result of the centralization debacle, which is one of the biggest operational issues of the last few years. Either they didn't get a question on the topic of collections and high losses, or they chose for it to be one of the questions they didn't answer. I hope the Board gets this specific detail, can isolate the effect of mortgage compared to peers, and holds management accountable to fix it.
@1:44. My comment was sort of about something else, though not well explained. It was more about the irony and the the underlying idea that they very much want focus on change, but when that change is unsuccessful or unpopular, they fall back to blaming or referencing the past as support or justification.
DeleteHowever, I like where you went with it and agree with your reply. I’d be very interested to see those same charts with the mortgage product broken out. I feel like the narrative would have to be different if delinquency were properly analyzed as distinct products. She made a choice to use what she used (aggregate numbers) because she could have a better narrative that way. I’m sure that was on purpose and I do find that to be misleading. I also found the Cash App answer to be misleading. That was indeed an intentional fraud perpetrated by the members, but she left out the part where an internal (or series of them) failure allowed it to happen at such scale and have such a large consequence.
@5:04.. you said it better than me. i understand what she was trying to do. there is a narrative she was trying to combat that losses have always been lower than peers, and one rate for all is why. Or related, that RBL has caused higher losses. Neither is true. If you unpack by product and account for loan asset class mix, going back many, many years, both mortgage losses and auto losses were / are higher than peers. And losses already escalated before RBL was implemented. RBL unequivocally has not caused higher losses. Lots of good arguments against RBL, but that isn't one of them. Members were absolutely misled with the notion that SECU is simply following industry trends and is somehow outperforming the industry on losses. I try to take what is said at face value, and the data was correct, but knowing LA has all this detail, unfortunately I think we were intentionally misled. I just hope the Board sees this information.
Delete