Monday, October 29, 2012

John Worth's Response Regarding Future Bank Versus CU Assessments

Two months ago, I wrote a blog post regarding NCUA's Chief Economist John Worth's comparison of future FDIC assessments compared to TCCUSF assessments.

I wrote John Worth asking him what assumptions he used. Here is what he wrote:

"All the FDIC information is drawn from the recent Assessments final rule.

o The rates are the low, midpoint, and upper bound of the ranges in Risk Category I (lowest risk) initial base assessment rate. For example for 2013 that would be 5,7,and 9 from Table 3 in the rule. Of course, some CUs might by in higher risk categories, so this understates the actual assessment burden.

o I use the rates in table 3 until 2018 (assuming DIF < 1.15) and rates in Table 4 thereafter. The rule notes the expectation that DIF will reach 1.15 in 2018. o The assessment rates for Risk Category I reflect the goal of having large and complex institutions bear the burden of moving the DIF from 1.15 to 1.35. Thus the large and highly complex institutions assessment rate. So that concern is fully addressed. o Again mirroring the rule – I didn’t make a downward adjustment for TLGP – that might move the DIF to 1.15 somewhat sooner, so could be a small overstatement, but won’t materially impact the results. During the most recent assessment cycle we forecast no NCUSIF assessment for the coming year. Future year forecasts are highly speculative. The key distinction is that the NCUSIF is near its statutory max, while the DIF assessment are required to bring the DIF back to required minimum. Comparing corporate and DIF assessment provides a reasonable basis for comparison. If there are downturns in economic conditions both the DIF and NCUSIF would perform worse than expected, potentially requiring higher assessments in either case. Finally, as you know over the past 20+ years there have only been a handful of NCUSIF assessments and there have been several dividend payments. Dividends will reduce corporate assessments, but are not factored into the projected assessment levels."


  1. This is comical. Did he write w a straight face?
    Showing future bank assessments "as if" they're all wells Fargo and responsible for the "extra assessment".

  2. The rates used are NOT the large bank rates. Risk Catagory I is the lowest rate set, assuming no resonsiblit for extra assessment.

  3. Call it John this the best we can expect from the NCUA? WesCorp CEO SIRAVO pulls down a $6M SERP. NCUA sues. SIRAVO kicks back 10% - all of $600,000 and the NCUA proclaims victory. Let's see...keep 90% kickback 10% - not a bad trade. These are the trades that killed WesCorp FCU. And now we have an NCUA Chief Economist. We are in deep trouble.



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.