How MBL Changes will Impact Your CU

February 19, 2016 at 9:20 am 2 comments

NCUA completed the first stage of arguably its most radical proposal in at least a decade yesterday when it finalized a rule that, when fully implemented, eliminates many of the MBL restrictions placed on federally insured credit unions.

In a nutshell, if all goes according to plan, smaller federally insured credit unions that make the occasional MBL loan will get substantial relief since many MBL requirements are being eliminated. Larger credit unions, and smaller ones that actively engage in MBL lending, will have greater flexibility to customize their MBL programs, but in return for this flexibility they must implement detailed policies and procedures that satisfy safety and soundness concerns.

There is much to be happy about for all credit unions. For example, currently, absent a waiver, credit unions are required to get personal guarantees on all MBL loans.  This nettlesome requirement is eliminated 60 days after this rule is published in the Federal Register. (The rest of the changes kick in January 2017)  In its place, credit unions will have to document the mitigating factors which justify, on a case by case basis, not requiring a member’s personal guarantee.

One of the dumbest quirks of MBL regulation is the one mandating that mortgages on second homes be classified as MBL loans since they are not a member’s primary residence. Credit unions can’t offer vacation home mortgages unless they comply with MBL requirements.  Well, common sense is finally prevailing and these loans will no longer be classified as business loans.

For many credit unions that only do the occasional loan, the time and effort it would take to develop and implement these MBL policies and procedures wouldn’t be worth it. More good news is that the new policy requirements don’t apply to credit unions that have less than $250 million in assets, have  commercial loan portfolios plus commercial loans sold but serviced less than 15 percent of their  total net worth, and, in any given calendar year, have originated and sold  no commercial loans that in the aggregate are less than 15 percent of its net worth.

The potentially radical part of the changes is the elimination of the specific prescriptions mandated under the current MBL framework and  replacing them with a requirement for active MBL credit unions to demonstrate how their programs are safe and sound.  These credit unions will have more flexibility to design their own MBL programs but will need detailed policies and procedures commensurate with the sophistication of their lending.

The development of policies and procedures are ultimately the responsibility of credit union boards which are explicitly responsible for receiving updates on MBL activity.  Policies and procedures will have to address, among other things, the hiring of qualified staff, the types of loans the credit union makes, its collateral requirements and the circumstances under which it will make exceptions to these requirements.

My concern is that just as these changes give credit unions greater flexibility in designing MBL programs, examiners will have greater discretion in determining if a given MBL program is safe and sound. NCUA isn’t going away for the weekend and leaving the kids in charge. Examiner guidance will be drafted explaining the parameters of credit union flexibility.  In a worst case scenario, an overly prescriptive MBL regulation will be replaced with an overly cautious examiner overseeing your MBL program.  This is not NCUA’s goal.  Staff stressed yesterday that examiners are going to be extensively trained over the next year, but bumps in the road are inevitable.  This new approach will only be truly effective if examiners give credit unions increased flexibility and if credit unions take their obligation for increased oversight of their MBL programs seriously.

Here is a link to a rule summary. Enjoy your weekend.

https://www.ncua.gov/About/Documents/Agenda%20Items/AG20160218Item2c.pdf

 

Entry filed under: Compliance, Regulatory. Tags: .

Lawyers: New York’s Power-of-Attorney laws Are Too Confusing The Best Example Of Regulatory Overkill

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Michael Murrock  |  February 19, 2016 at 11:22 am

    I have to admit that our examiners have – with some exceptions – been reasonable when “confronted” about their “concerns.” I don’t expect that we will have a huge issue with these changes. We’re very conservative with our commercial lending.

    Reply
  • 2. new york's state of mind  |  June 13, 2017 at 10:24 am

    […] readers of this blog know, on January 1st NCUA instituted a radical new approach to MBL regulation under which credit […]

    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 460 other followers

Archives