Isn't that backwards under our U.S. system of justice?
✅ Ms. Cathie Plaut, SECU Chief Legal Officer
Raleigh, North Carolina
September 10, 2025
Re: SECU Member Resolutions
Dear Ms. Plaut,
Thank
you for your letter of September 3, 2025 responding to the request for
rules and procedures for submitting SECU member resolutions.
From the letter, I understand that your opinion is that SECU member resolutions may 1) only be submitted at a "Special Membership Meeting" and 2) that "SECU has not promulgated rules and procedures further detailing this process".
It is an innovative idea to believe that Article VIII, Section 4 of the bylaws ["Special meetings of the members may be called by the chairman and shall be called on the written request of not less than 10% of the membership."] is meant to address member resolutions. Doesn't requiring over 300,000 SECU members ["10%+"] to petition the SECU Board - simply asking to be heard - create an extraordinary barrier?
Had hoped that some reasonable, straightforward rules and procedures would enable SECU members to submit governance-related resolutions directly to the SECU Board for consideration. Had also assumed that such governance-related resolutions would generally be positive suggestions, not an attack upon the Board.
Ms. Plaut, your "Special Meeting" interpretation on member resolutions appears to "assume the worst" - that all member resolutions will be adversarial and not constructive. Assuming the best from the SECU membership might be a better initial course.
Since you acknowledge that no rules and regulations yet exist, and that such changes will require future, Board-approved, bylaw amendments; would you consider a discussion of other possible alternatives for the Board to use, prior to any "Special Meeting"?
Creating the "Special Meeting" requirement seems to further disenfranchise SECU members in their roles as member-shareholders, unnecessarily.
Thanks for your consideration. Look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Jim Blaine, SECU member
cc: Leigh.Brady@ncsecu.org> kristina.ray@nccud.nc.gov>
it is not her personal opinion that resolutions may only be submitted via a special meeting. It is a fact in the bylaws.
ReplyDelete8:38am Sorry it isn't in the bylaws. Entirely a fiction, take a look... if you can find a copy!
DeleteI disagree with almost everything you say except for posting the bylaws.. Why not post them? Members have a right to know how the organization they own is run.
DeleteAgree, they absolutely should be posted even we are required to post them. Only a small handful of members have ever requested them so the reality is there isn’t much interest in them, but it would be a simple and good faith act to provide more transparency for members. Surely someone will submit a question about it for the annual meeting.
Deletewhy is Leigh Brady so obtuse and tone deaf on resolving easy issues? Incompetent?
Delete1:17 you can’t handle her job for 5 minutes. What you don’t get is that there is a different view of what the issues even are. Just cuz someone whines about something on this blog does not make it an issue worthy of her attention. In fact would struggle to come up with an legit and credible example of an issue mentioned on this blog that is worth her time.
DeleteDon't exaggerate. It's not more than 300,000 members. And, no, it's not an extraordinary barrier.
ReplyDelete8:43am With @ 3 million SECU members thought 10% would be @300,000 members. What number did you come up with?
DeleteWe don’t have 3 million members. Get your facts straight.
Delete8:54am Apologize, you're right... according to the NCUA the # of SECU members was 2,936,759... two months ago... good catch!
Deletehttps://mapping.ncua.gov/CreditUnionDetails/66310
Your letter said requiring”over” 300,000 members. Just highlighting you propensity to exaggerate, overstate and provide bad facts.
Delete9:30am Got it! Again, thanks for the great catch!
DeleteHaha I would just consider that rounding the same point applies to ether number.
DeleteYou’re delusional - Ms. Plaut and one of your commenters parted in the literal words from the Article and Section of the bylaws.
ReplyDeleteAs the commenter posting those it was not simple and the branch employees were very hesitant to even tell me them I was not given a copy and getting that far took an hour of let me check with my manager. I would not say it was “easy” I don’t think they were hiding them from me but there was not a clear process for them to provide us with our rights per the bylaws.
Delete9:31am Probably so, but could you help us all by publishing that existing SECU bylaw which describes member resolutions?
ReplyDeleteLook forward to seeing it ... will help with the delusions.
Why do you write like you're running out of time?
ReplyDelete9:29am Because I think that credit unions as originally conceived are running out of time..
DeleteSorry to seem rushed, will slow down and write more often... thanks for being a loyal follower.
9:33, That’s precisely your problem - fighting for credit unions as originally conceived. It’s not 1934 and it’s not 1960’s Mayberry. The world has changed. There is no CU movement clinging to the past, nor should there be. Member owned financial coops still have a place though and will thrive if they have forward looking leaders who recognize the realities of the current space.
Delete@9:33 That's all Gobbledegook and wasted words.
DeletePrior success was real and since Haze there has been a regression that is just as real. Your goal of industry standard has been achieved. What a win! Congrats.
1:49 Sure thing.. membership, deposits, assets, credit card and overall loan growth is significantly better than industry standard. So is Op ex.
DeleteDealing with mortgages booked in 19/20 and DQ is obscenely higher than industry standard. I aspire for us to get to get to industry standard on that metric because it would mean we’re no longer putting members on over there heads with high risk mortgages - don’t you?
If my words are wasted, yours are unsupported by facts.. if success was defined by making responsible users of credit go get loans from either paying above market or going somewhere else, congrats. You succeeded!
@2:23 Ha! More smoke and mirrors from the new/new - misdirection and obfuscation. Delinquency out of control because of 19/20 mortgages? That's a fairy tale. Delinquency was in great shape until the new regime came along and decided to centralize collections. SECU still trying to recover from that disastrous decision.
DeleteWant a real life example of what credit unions can do? The Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP) developed after the Great Recession literally kept thousands of SECU mortgages borrowers in their homes and gave them the opportunity to get back on their feet and saved SECU from having to foreclose unlike all the industry standard lenders. That is another example of home grown innovation and SECU setting the example for the whole country.
Let's talk about the implementation of Race Based Lending by the new/new. Where is all that A money that was to come stampeding in the door while at the same time treating other SECU members like second class citizens? That's industry standard too - shame on you! Indefensible...well, except by those that think members are only worth what you can squeeze out of them for your bottom line.
Your implication that the world has changed and left the old SECU behind is a complete cop out. The world always changes. You think it didn't change from 1937 to 2021? I call BS. SECU had always adapted, innovated and been incredibly successful in the past. How long you going to blame all your shortcomings on what happened before 2020? What a joke.
drop the mic ...... ;)
Delete12:08.. Case and point. So with MAP, let's brag about a program that saves members and solves an avoidable problem we caused for them in the first place! First, go back and look at our mortgage and TDR loss rates on mortgage - even with MAP, 2x at least larger than the industry.
DeleteIf you haven't considered why mortgage delinquency is as high as it is (shockingly higher than industry), it's because the 5 year adjustable rate mortgages a low rate environment in 2019 and 2020 reset, payments went way up, and people struggle to make them. Not complicated.
You can also look at our mix of originations by variable and fixed rate. The industry standard CU's actually originated fixed rate mortgages in a low rate environment and then shielded their members from the risk of rate increases. We did the opposite - while the ARM mix for others was minor, the overwhelming majority of our loans were ARM. And, because we thought the secondary market was too tight, we had lax underwriting standards compared to the market.
So we look at things like MAP and rejoice that we're different because we own the loans and can do what we want to help members. Instead, we should have allowed 30 year fixed and prevented the problem in the first place.
Go check out how many thousands of members are struggling to make their modified payments. Not something to boast about if you ask me.
You couldn't have picked a better example to prove my point. The hubris and constant thinking that we were better and smarter, and guess what, we weren't.
As for RBL, that is such an obvious improvement. We are no longer the only CU that charged punitive about market rates to our members who are financially responsible. That's all one needs to know.
Delete12:08. I can’t recall seeing a better post that typified the cancerous thinking in a very small minority of our membership. Folks think we had it all figured out and we’re better than everyone else. We cornered the market in every industry best directives, didn’t we? And we tell ourselves we did it for decades. That’s why this vocal ignorant minority can’t even see the nerd fit chair, let alone adapt to it. Then attack anyone who has a narrative different than the one you tell yourself, and then throw a tantrum woken someone loves your cheese. That’s so enlightened.
Only thing you really need to know is if things are so bad, you’re quite welcome to leave.
8:11. Exhibit B. Thanks.
DeleteWell, we can all pray that "you know who" doesn't work for, let alone lead at SECU... or anywhere else that requires human grace and empathy for that matter.
DeleteSounds like an AI algorithm... weak minded, troubled heart, and absolutely no soul.
Must be tough existence...
As Ben Shaw said “You hear something like that and realize you never know what someone’s dealing with. Maybe they’re not visibly struggling, but something’s going on, so I try to have empathy ”
Delete"Sounds like an AI algorithm..."
Deleteif only so ........ nope this comes from someone who collects their pay check from those he/she/they despises ...
@10:43 while you are praying for her, do you have an opinion or perspective on the topic? 9:27 puts forward an interesting point view that could be verified or discredited with data. Can you opine and educate us on an actual, real live issue that should be of interest to members?
Delete9:51am Sure be glad to! Assume you are also 9:27 am is that right?... and have the detailed stats on the portfolio from your comments.
DeleteTo start please share some additional info. From the 6/30/2025 NCUA Call report SECU manages a portfolio of 1.2 million individual loans with combined balances of $36.6 billion. Of theses loans, 176,528 are first mortgages with balances of $26.1 billion. So, over 70% of SECU loans are member home loans... a very important part of what SECU for folks. Those are official stats so hope no argument there, okay?
To answer your questions, need a bit more information... could you break out the $26.1 billion in mortgages by the following categories: #and$, original term, and type? For example: 1) 15 yr ARM #/$, 2) 30 yr ARM #/$, 3)15 yr fixed #/$, 4) 30 yr fixed #/$.
As you know this info is readily available and compiled every month... feel free to add other significant categories if you like, but those four represent the majority of the portfolio.
Thanks, then we can get going.
(BTW, wasn't sure who or why it was a "her" in your comment ??)
Well.. not cool these days to misgender people, right? Lots of folks in LA have comments and data on this topic.
DeleteMortgage lending at SECU is a failure. The branches need to be put back in charge of approving loans to get us back on track. The MLS teams are a joke.
Delete11:20... you can get the numbers the same as me, but this is an important topic and we have a lot of data around this, so I will indulge with the naive belief that it I share some NCUA data, make some observations, and then prompt some questions in hope that we could actually have a credible dialogue about this topic.
DeleteHere is some data for us and CU aggregate as of December 2019.
Mortgage loan portfolio balance distribution by product type:
Fixed rate: All CU = 58%, SECU =15%
Hybrid: All CU = 29%, SECU = 0%
Adjustable All CU = 13%, SECU = 85%
Mix of mortgage loans originated in 2019:
Fixed rate: All CU = 71%, SECU =25%
Hybrid: All CU = 20%, SECU =0%
Adjustable All CU = 9%, SECU = 75%
Fixed mortgages as a % of loans, 12/2019:
SECU 6.52%
All CU: 33.9%
Mortgage loss rate, 2019..
SECU: .05%
All CU: .02%
Mortgage 60+ DQ Rate, as of Dec 2019:
SECU: 2.09%
All CU: .55%
Mortgage 60+ DQ rate as of June 2025
SECU: 2.54%
All CU: .74%
*for SECU, another 2.22% of the mortgage portfolio is in TDR balances. All in, 4.76% of mortgage balances were 60+ DQ or were in a TDR as of June 2025. For all CU's that total number is 2.05%.
Key rates for mortgages, then and now..
SOFR: 12/ 2019 = 1.55%, 8/ 2025 = 4.38%
10Y Treas: 12/ 2019 = 1.92%, 8/2025 =4.25%
2:25pm You are always self-assured, except when you're ask to provide exact data. If I can obtain the data requested through NCUA would you please tell us all how to do it?
DeleteAny reason you can't provide the data requested? It is readily available in the monthly loan analysis reports prepared at SECU.
The failure to be transparent and forthcoming on simple questions and issues has been the chief failure at SECU over the last 3 years. Suspicion among members is aroused - whether justified or not! not.
Hope that your failure to answer is because the commenter is actually a low grade AI - probably been around since 1983! If so, an intelligent upgrade is definitely in order!
As of June, 2025, from call report.
DeleteFixed > 15 years; #37,314, $6.882 billion
Fixed < 15 years: #24,226, $1.836 billion
ARM: #114,988, $17.435 billion.
2/3 of our mortgage portfolio is in ARMs, compared to 11% in the industry.
I don't provide non-public data on this blog, for many reasons, but primarily because you can't debate or spin the numbers.
I guess you need more numbers to form an opinion on this topic? I've already spoon fed you enough.
You just dodge and deflect this topic - and I hope it's because you feel guilty about your mortgage model that puts members in peril - including possibly losing their home. But sure, let's complain because a member who pays their bills late has to pay 1% more on their car loan.
3:46pm Thanks for the additional info. You failed to mention that folks/doubters can find it on page 11 of the NCUA Call Report... so it's official, no dispute, no spin!
DeleteAs you point out, whether by # (115/177 thousand loans) or $ ($17.4 ARM/$26 bill. total) about two thirds (@65%) of SECU mortgages are in ARMs.
Just to start the conversation do you think that's good or bad?
You note that the "industry standard" in ARMs is @11% and indicate that "your mortgage model" puts members "in peril"... can you explain what you mean a little more clearly?
Is it ARM lending which is imperiling the members? Look forward to your reply.
Hope those are some spin free questions you can feel comfortable answering.
Well..I think it’s bad - right now. Variable rate loans reset. Rates down = good. Rates up = bad. Your mortgage business model, of originating mostly variable rate loans to portfolio them vs. originating fixed rate loans and holding or even better selling them out the interest rate risk onto the member borrowers and it imperiled them.
Delete2/3 vs. 11%, reflects a far different strategy and our long term strategy has severe consequences in sharply rising interest rate cycles. 600 million in modified loans another another several hundred million delinquency is frightening and is a direct result of the mortgage strategy and business model. When rates were super low, putting people in fixed rate mortgages was the right and smart play. But no, we thought we had a better way - we did more or less the opposite and put our members into variable rate loans at the low point of the rate cycle and exposed them to sharply higher interest rates. That, coupled with the already lax underwriting standards (see DQ and loss rates compared to industry in 2019 during a healthy economy), made the mortgage portfolio a ticking time bomb, and to what should no one’s surprise, it blew up. About to start the easing and lower rate cycle, but rates will still reset higher. But now add a weakening labor market, a higher than target rate of inflation, and sifter home prices and the DQ problem won’t be solved by lower rates.
Important point for members is that the cause of the massive delinquency and thousands of members not being able to make modified payments is our unique or unicorn mortgage strategy - cuz prior leadership thought they had a better way, and clearly didn’t.
Hopefully that helps explain how members were put in peril. Would remind all - just look at the numbers - our DQ is multiples higher than the industry on mortgage, now and before new/new.
Unfortunate that the Cu’s largest issue gets no discussion on this blog, while we worry about Q&A procedures.
And, hard truth for folks - look at the 2019 numbers (or pick any year going back from that) - the myth perpetuated on this blog that we have way better than average credit performance is simply not true.
4:09am Well, thank you for submitting your "lending manifesto" ("your model"!). Hope we can explore it a bit.
DeleteFirst question is again "Do you think a 30 year (for example) fixed rate mortgage is better than a 30
year ARM." I'll admit I don't think that is correct thinking for SECU. Why do you think that's not correct?
Better for who? The member or the credit union in general?
Delete10:12am Is there a difference? If so, explain . Thanks.
DeleteSo, the 30 year fixed is better for the member, not as good for the CU because it bears the interest rate risk instead of the member.
Delete11:16am That sounds simple enough! The member with the low fixed-rate 30 year mortgage "wins" (certainly agree with that!)... and the credit union "loses".
DeleteWho is "the credit union"?
Layer in the other part of the model - ARM loans written to portfolio standards, which are riskier than loans sold in the market.
Delete11:23am Why are ARMs "written to portfolio standards" riskier?
DeleteThey would be riskier in the sense that they could be sold like a GSE eligible loan so the credit Union would absorb all the risk, but I don’t think that a portfolio arm is any riskier than a portfolio fixed.
Delete11:21am How does the credit union lose? I didn’t say that.
ReplyDelete11:21am Well, you said the 30 year fixed rate mortgage is "better for the member" (I agreed!), and "not as good for the CU" - your words.
DeleteWhat did you mean by "not as good for the credit union"?
There is no risk-free scenario for the CU. The credit union assumes the interest rate risk on fixed rate loans, so if they originate and hold fixed rate loans, it’s a fact there is more inherent interest rate risk than with ARM loans.
DeleteBut that’s not losing.
11:55am Probably can drop the biz speak "inherent" type words so the rest of us can understand better.
DeleteLet me translate "interest rate risk" ("inherent" or otherwise!) for regular members. Interest rates as we all know move up and down quite frequently.
The way our commenter sees life, with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage the borrower takes no interest rate change risk - the rate is fixed (stays the same) for the life of the loan up to 30 years.
Therefore "the credit union" takes all the risk. As a borrower reading that, you would think the 30-year fixed rate is the only way to go, right?
You might want to think about that (does that sound right?), but to think about it reasonably, we need to understand: "If the borrower is not taking any "interest rate risk" (which definitely exists!), who does?
The commenter keeps saying "the credit union" takes the risk. Again, how does the credit union do that?
2:42pm * Who takes the risk? Thought I kinda covered but the credit union does. Should be implicit what that means, but all member owners bear the interest rate risk of any fixed rate loans held on the balance sheet.
Delete4:00pm Phew, took a long time to get that confirmed, but perhaps we can move faster now.
DeleteHere's the simple point for regular CU members to consider. When you borrow, where does the money you receive come from? With SECU, the answer is from the savings deposits (CD, IRAs, MMSA, shares) of your fellow SECU members.
It's not "the Credit Union" which is taking all that "inherent interest rate risk" on your behalf: it's your co-workers, neighbors, family who save with SECU.
Is it reasonable, fair, - let alone financially sound - for SECU savers to absorb all that interest rate risk on your behalf for the next 30 years?
Would you as an individual?
Savers have to absorb all the credit risk from the ARM borrowers. Do they not?
Delete4:16. I don't even accept the premise of your question. Mortgages don't stay on the books for 30 years, and we can choose to sell them and not have the risk, and we can choose to hedge them to mitigate the risk.
Delete4:47 pm Interesting point, but you forget to mention you can only sell them at a substantial loss "to the Credit Union".
DeleteWhy do you fail to mention what's most important to regular members trying to understand the discussion?
You have booked @ $6.882 billion in >15 year fixed rate mortgages (see your 3:49 pm Call Report info above). As interest rates rise - as they have over the last two years, SECU has incurred a substantial "unrealized loss" on those mortgages (that simply means those $6.8 billion in loans are worth substantially less than $6.8 billion!). If you sell the loans as you suggest, that substantial oss will be real and immediate.
But for the sake of argument, tell members what that loss would be if the Board approved your suggestion to sell the $6.8 billion.
Don't have to be precise, just round the loss to the nearest $100 million, okay?
Do you even understand how it works? When you sell loave you sell them at origination and earn gain on sale - they never go on the books in the first place. That’s the model we want going forward. Under no circumstance am I suggesting we’d sell impaired mortgage loans at a discount. That would make no sense whatsoever.
Delete11:40 because they have been traditionally underwritten with more liberal standards and looser criteria than what the market does on fixed rate loans
ReplyDelete2:44pm If what you say is true then the question becomes: "Who is "they""?
DeleteIn your comment the "they" seems to mean that ARMs are written to "more liberal and looser" standards than fixed rates.
But the "they" I'm wondering about is the "they" who approved those loose standards? Was it loan administration, the ELT or the SECU Board?
When did those loose standards get approved? Or have they always existed? SECU has been making ARMs for almost 50 years...
So if the alternative model others deploy, of originating fixed loans and putting in the portfolio isn’t responsible or safe and sound, wouldn’t we expect to see those credit unions take major hits as rates rise? Yet secu is among the most unprofitable..
ReplyDelete8:10pm As President Regan would point out: "There you go again"!
ReplyDeleteTry to grasp that credit unions are not for profit cooperatives... "profitable/unprofitable" is not the measure of success or failure.
This leads regular folks - who own SECU, (y'know the members!) to wonder if you know what you're doing.
Actually it's scary if you have any leadership role in lending at SECU... perhaps that's what the last 3 years has been about...
Spare me the lecture. I know credit unions are not about profit, and we are succeeding at not being too profitable.
Delete"... succeeding at not being too profitable."
DeleteThat's hilarious!
8:10pm "...if the alternative model others deploy, of originating fixed loans and putting in the portfolio isn’t responsible or safe and sound,..."
ReplyDeleteGuess I should also point out that no financial institution makes and books an unlimited $ amount of 30 year fixed rate mortgage loans because all rightfully fear the interest rate risk they are taking on.
Didn't know that? Well, did you know that SECU has a long established limit on 30-year fixed rate mortgages? Why don't you look it up and tell the membership what that limit is... you really should know this.
Surprised you don't!
the average life of a 30 year mortgage is 7 years so let’s not exaggerate
ReplyDeleteWhat you haven’t done is offer one credible comment on why this ARM business model you ran makes sense. Defend that. Explain that. You won’t though, because you can’t, with common sense, facts, or data.
ReplyDelete