Thursday, May 7, 2015

NCUA Walks Back from Associational Common Bond Limits

Despite a promising proposal, the National Credit Union Administration walked back somewhat from its plan to rein in expansive fields of membership (FOM) for federal credit unions via associational common bonds.

The NCUA Board approved a final rule amending the associational common bond provisions of the agency’s chartering and field of membership requirements, including a requirement that the association must not have been formed primarily for the purpose of expanding credit union membership.

However, the final rule included carveouts and exceptions that undermine its stated purpose of the final rule. For example, NCUA expanded the pool of associations that will be considered to automatically meet associational common bond requirements to include parent-teacher associations, chambers of commerce, athletic booster clubs, fraternal organizations and professional associations. It also removed a requirement that an association operate independently for at least a year before being added to an FOM.

Moreover, the agency significantly weakened the requirement that a federal credit union (FCU) and the association the FCU wishes to add to its FOM demonstrate corporate separateness exists between the two entities. NCUA initially proposed looking at five factors to demonstrate corporate separateness, including an association maintains a separate physical location, which does not include a P.O. Box or other mail drop, and not on premises owned or leased by the FCU; the FCU and association are held out to the public as a separate enterprise; the FCU’s and the association’s respective business transactions, accounts, and records are not intermingled. The final rule will now only look at one factor to determine corporate separateness -- if an FCU’s and an association’s respective business transactions, accounts, and records are not intermingled.

Read the final rule.

1 comment:

  1. Once again, NCUA thumbs it's nose at congress:
    1000 LICUs
    Charter change rules
    Contingency lawsuits
    Note to Issa, Shelby and Hensarling- come and get me, I dare you. Until then, I do as I please to hang on to my independence. No matter whether it's legal, moral ethical or fair.
    Hey McWatters, want to be true to your word and improve transparency?
    Lots of low hanging fruit.



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.