Lets Hope Not!
DFPI likes to boast of its consumer protection and of California as "the charter of choice" for credit unions. The SAFE Board evidently doesn't believe DFPI is all it's quacked up to be. Instead, SAFE has chosen to "give it up" - even "give it away"! - and move to Washington!
NCUA - never really famous for "member engagement" - is reviewing its rules on merger and conversions; and has asked for input from the public! One comment on mergers comes from a new CU activist group, Endangered Small Credit Union Defense (ESCUD) [link]:
✔ "ESCUD believes member engagement and notification should be strengthened, not weakened."
✔ "Members are the owners of the cooperative. At the precise moment they risk losing their not-for-profit ownership rights, profit-sharing model, tax-exempt structure, and community-focused mission, they deserve clear, prominent, timely, and effective disclosures."
✔ "We urge the NCUA to ensure that any final rule maintains — or even enhances — meaningful member awareness and participation rather than reducing procedural safeguards in charter-ending transactions."
😎 As to the "charter of choice", DFPI's latest "innovation" may be doing what was once thought impossible...
As to NCUA, hold your breath or nose - depending on your political persuasion -- as the Supreme Court decides the fate of the Agency today ...
ReplyDeletehttps://thecudaily.com/supreme-court-ruling-expected-thursday-in-case-that-will-have-strong-implications-for-ncua/
Agree with the point that there should be more disclosures and engagement, and in fact both member bases should be required to vote in a merger.
ReplyDeleteBut ESCUD is indeed an activist organization, but not a credible one. They want special regulatory treatment that community banks their size and other credit unions don't get, all because they think regs are burdensome and unnecessary, all because they encounter a clueless regulatory every once in a while. NCUA has taken 17 conservatorship or involuntary liquidations since 2024. Of those, the largest size was 173 million and the average asset size was 39 million. I wonder which unnecessary or burdensome regulations brought those credit unions down? This is the group, which expects large CU's to pay for their backstop, that they deserve should get a pass on regs because they don't agree with? Then, they despise other small CU's that merge, even though those CU leaders understand the realities of the market and that they aren't sustainable without special treatment. All the while, they hold the highest capital ratios (by far) instead of giving it back to their members.