Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Kern Schools Confidential Supervisory Agreement

Credit Union Journal (subscription required) reported today that NCUA has imposed a supervisory agreement on Kern Schools FCU to rebuild its capital.

Credit Union Journal wrote that "the confidential agreement with NCUA was disclosed yesterday by Vincent Rojas, the departing CEO."

The story states that NCUA has given the credit union 24 months to restore its capital ratio to 7 percent -- the minimum requirement to be well capitalized.

Enforcement actions, such as written agreements, ceased and desist orders, and prompt corrective action capital directives, taken against banks by federal banking regulators have been public information since 1989.

The Federal Credit Union Act requires enforcement actions to be made public unless the Board determines it is not in the public interest to release this information.(emphasis added)

How would the publishing of this supervisory agreement be contrary to the public interest?

At the minimum, shouldn't Kern Schools members know whether their credit union is subject to an enforcement action?

Moreover, we know there are 326 problem credit unions from NCUA's Chairman Deborah Matz's testimony from last week.

So, how many other supervisory agreements have been not disclosed by NCUA?

What is this agency covering up?
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    Funny, but the FDIC does not publish their watch list either. It seems to me both agencies should strive for more transparency with regards to letting the public know what is going on.

    Again, another instance of you only telling one side of the story Keith. Keep fighting the fight!

    99 failed banks and counting! I hope the ABA does not lose too much revenue as a result of all these failures...

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 20, 2009 at 11:50 AM

    As much as it kills me, I must agree with Dr. Leggett. The NCUA should be publishing this information just like the Federal Reserve does for banks that need capital and the institution agrees to raise such capital. My concern is in the Bakersfield Californian which states that a board member did not know this agreement existed. That is shocking!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Keith LeggettOctober 20, 2009 at 11:54 AM

    Dear Anonymous:

    Unfortunately, you missed the point.

    You cannot find any recent information on NCUA's website regarding enforcement actions.

    This is not the case for the federal banking regulators.

    For example, if you go the below link and click on year, you will see all the enforcement actions for FDIC regulating banks in that year. http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/enforcement/begsrch.html

    Referencing the number of problem CUs was meant to highlight this lack of transparency.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 

The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.