Tuesday, April 21, 2015

List of CUs that Would See An Increase in Share of NCUSIF Assessment Base

Below is a list of the 456 credit unions that would see an increase in their portion of the NCUSIF assessment base, if the assessment base shifted from insured shares and deposits to total assets minus net worth.  The credit unions are ranked by largest change in share of NCUSIF assessment base  (click on images to enlarge).


  1. Doc,

    Sorry about that last comment appearing under the wrong post...

    Will you help confirm that although only 453 CUs will see their "portion" of the fund increase, that almost all CUs will have an increase in premium?

    Here's the unscientific guess (the approach NCUA quants most often use!): Historically "on average" most credit unions had about 10-15% of shares in accts. over $100k and therefore uninsured (no premium deposit). Even with move to $250k "on average" CUs have 8-10% of shares in large uninsured accts.

    Using the "on average" 10% in uninsured, $250k+ acct estimate, then on average all CUs are going to pay an add'l 10% premium/deposit to NCUSIF for those accts given the new "assets - net worth formula"? Comprendez?

    If correct, that means NCUA will have CUs paying an insurance premium/deposit on accts that are uninsured... got to love it, "an uninsured deposit insurance premium"!

    CU folks now call that kind of NCUA "logic" a "larry"!

    Actually higher premia for almost everybody - right??

  2. Jim:

    My analysis was based upon being revenue neutral. Under that scenario, only 453 would see an increase in their share of the assessment base.

    If NCUA charges the same premium of 1/12th of one percent, most CUs would see an increase in their insurance assessment. But this would not be revenue neutral.

    The other thing to take into consideration is whether NCUA gets legislation to put in place a risk-based premium system. That would also shift the amount paid.



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.