How NCUA’s Revised Capital Proposal Will Affect Your Credit Union

January 16, 2015 at 8:37 am 1 comment

Now that NCUA has taken its mulligan and released the brand new Risk-Based Capital proposal, it’s time to start digesting how its suggested framework will impact the industry. While the ultimate impact will be unique to each credit union, there are certain things that are crystal clear.

In a nutshell, if your credit union has $100 million or more in assets and specializes in certain types of MBL or real estate loans, for example, then there is very little NCUA has suggested in its do over that will make this proposal more palatable. In contrast, if your credit union has under $100 million in assets or over $100 million in assets but has a fair share of longer term investments and avoids loan concentrations, NCUA’s new proposal is a noticeable improvement over its original framework. Still, there are many questions that the industry should be asking and many areas that need to be refined.

The most dramatic improvement of the proposal is that is raises the threshold after which credit unions must comply from those with $50 million to those with $100 million in assets. In New York State, this means that under the old proposal 111 credit unions were subject to an enhanced RBC framework, but now only 75 will be. This is a huge step in the right direction since an RBC framework should be designed to guard against systemic risk as opposed to trying to prevent every individual credit union from failing. My question is: why $100 million? As I talked about in yesterday’s blog, all but the biggest credit unions are struggling and increasingly there are big differences between a $500 million credit union and a $100 million one.

NCUA also took a huge step back when it decided not to use its proposed RBC framework to control interest rate risk. This is obviously good news for those of you with longer term investments, but don’t fool yourselves, interest rate risk remains NCUA’s primary concern and it will be coming out with additional proposals to deal with it.  Still the proposal does away with  “weighted average life” tiers that weighted longer term investments against credit unions simply due their term.

Common sense prevailed and if your credit union is subject to the RBC framework, you will have until January 1, 2019 as opposed to 18 months from issuance to comply with this mandate. I have no idea what NCUA was thinking when it came up with this initial timeline.

NCUA is sticking to its legal guns and insisting that it has the right to delineate credit unions as either well capitalized or adequately capitalized. I don’t have the time or space to delve into the legal nuances, but suffice it to say that this distinction would be at the core of any legal challenge to NCUA’s ultimate regulation. The good news is that NCUA has lowered the threshold for well-capitalized credit unions from 10.5% to 10%.

Now for the bad news. The biggest change in tone and substance in the new proposal deals with the adequacy of credit union buffers. In criticizing the initial proposal, many credit unions pointed out that they preferred to have capital buffers. As a result, even though the vast majority of credit unions were already well capitalized, the industry pointed out that many would feel the need to increase their capital cushions. As I pointed out in an earlier blog, NCUA seemed to be indifferent to this concern in marked contrast to the position taken by other financial regulators. Not any more. In yesterday’s proposal, NCUA puts credit unions on notice that it has the authority to impose additional capital requirements on credit unions where unique risks justify safety and soundness concerns. The Board will be coming out with additional guidance and all credit unions are going to want to take a close look at what the NCUA says is an appropriate buffer.

One other concern I have with this proposal is that it still creates the impression that investing within the credit union industry is a bad idea. Specifically, it only reduces its proposed risk rating for investing in corporate perpetual capital from 200 to 150 and investments in CUSOs are still among the most negatively weighted. With regard to the corporate weightings, it’s unfair to encourage credit unions to invest in corporates only to penalize them for making such investments. Furthermore, we need a viable corporate system. With regard to investments in CUSOs, I still say that absent a showing that all CUSOs pose a systemic risk, credit unions should not be penalized for investing in services for credit unions. NCUA has given itself more than enough power to deal with CUSOs on a case-by-case basis.

I could say much, much more, but I am running out of space and time. Have a good weekend and enjoy the football games.

Entry filed under: Regulatory. Tags: , , .

Its time for Credit unions to Hang together or they will hang separately Are credit scores obsolete?

1 Comment Add your own

  • […] Starting on January 1, 2019, credit unions with 100 million or more assets have to comply with the risk based capital requirements. NCUA implemented these more complex requirements in reaction to a series of similar reforms undertaken by the larger banking industry. Since 2013, banking regulators have been phasing in new risk grading requirements. For example, starting on January 1, 2018, there are scheduled to be new limits placed on the amount of mortgage servicing assets that can count towards an organization’s risk based capital requirements. Tuesday’s announcement is the latest and strongest signal that risk based capital requirements will be scaled back for smaller institutions. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Authored By:

Henry Meier, Esq., General Counsel, New York Credit Union Association.

The views Henry expresses are Henry’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 449 other followers

Archives