H. 410 - House Banking Committee - Will Move Local Deposits, Capital, Jobs Out Of North Carolian

Good Morning, my name is Mike Lord. I retired as President/CEO
of SECU in August 2021 after a 46-year career with the credit union. Prior to
serving as CEO, I was the CFO for 30 years and served in the branch network as
a branch manager and loan officer.

I want to thank Majority Leader Bell, Representative Howard and the other co-
sponsors of the bill for their efforts to improve the state-chartered credit
unions of North Carolina. I appreciate the opportunity to have my comments
heard in this forum and I will be brief.

Initially, I supported the idea of open fields of membership for our state-
chartered credit unions. I have come to change my mind after careful
reflection of the pros and cons of changes which are codified in HB 410.
I recommend that the bill be revised to incorporate restrictions on common
bonds and open fields of membership to protect state-chartered credit unions,
credit union members and the citizens of North Carolina

.
I offer four reasons for this request:

1. Allowing unlimited national fields of membership will outsource capital that is currently re-invested in the people of North Carolina. Deposits attracted from North Carolinians will be redeployed in loans made in other states rather than staying in local North Carolina communities. This outflow of capital would harm North Carolinians.
2.  Allowing national fields of membership will export NC Jobs to other states. Because dollars previously invested in loans to NC   instead become loans to citizens of other states, new facilities like call centers, loan processing centers, data centers and other administrative and staffing support would be outsourced to cities in other states to provide services and to promote disaster recovery over the geographic footprint of the credit union. The loss of the benefits of creating good jobs in NC communities through investments made by local institutions could be significant. National financial institutions commonly do this.
3.  The Governance and Local Control of NC credit unions could be transferred out of state. As the volume of NC deposits, assets and loans decline as a percentage of the total overall business of the credit union, the states that provide the funding would control the institution. California, New York and other large population centers would likely have considerable influence over time.
4.  Relocation of a credit union’s headquarters to another state would be increasingly likely, as member growth in other states could mandate a change in location. For over 100 years NC Credit Unions have been significant economic engines, which have benefited the State by providing North Carolinians billions of dollars of loans. These loans were funded by deposits raised from members in local NC communities. As an example, SECU has a physical branch in all 100 counties of North Carolina, a network of 1,100 ATMs, and many call centers scattered around the State. These investments created good jobs in communities across North Carolina.
   

The state statutes and state-charter have supported NC Credit Unions in their
efforts to serve members with convenient, fairly-priced products and services.
Please revise the common bond/field of membership portions of HB 410 to
allow this to continue. It is important to North Carolinians and to North
Carolina.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.

H. 410 - House Banking Committee - Speaking Truth To Power

 

I have been a credit union member for over 40 years.

My main concerns with HB 410 are three-fold. The first as described in sections 109.26 and 27 are open field of membership. This change would hurt smaller credit unions and even some community banks. Large credit unions would likely recruit many of the members and customers away from these local institutions potentially leaving them with no alternative but to close their doors.

Once this consolidation is complete several large credit unions would hold too much power over their members. They could for example increase loan rates and other fees and at that point the members would have few alternatives. Monopolies rarely end well for the little guy.

Additionally, adding corporations as members would seem to set a dangerous precedent. Again, consolidating power in the hands of a few large entities usually does not end well for the individual, especially those of modest means.

Secondly, some of the language in section 109.31 is of great concern. Currently members are the owners of their credit union. However, by giving too much power to Boards that may alter by-laws and change how member business is conducted and by giving more power to large corporate members the individual members stand to lose their voice in the operation of their own credit union. Having checks and balances protects everyone.

Lastly, one of the great things about current North Carolina credit unions is their investment in their communities and the state of North Carolina - keeping jobs and money in local communities. Section 109.82 would potentially allow credit unions to invest in securities anywhere in the world and export money and jobs out of the state. The current impact by credit unions on its members in North Carolina and on North Carolina jobs cannot be overstated and should not be overlooked. 

Giving more power to the already powerful, and trusting they will do the right thing is asking too much based on past behaviors in similar circumstances - power corrupts all too often. I would respectfully ask that you protect the millions of credit union members in the state by voting against HB 410.

Thank you. 

 

   No,... THANK YOU!