Friday, September 1, 2017

Progressive CU CEO Familant Compensation Topped $10 Million in 2015

Taxi medallion lender Progressive Credit Union (New York, NY) reported that its chief executive officer/treasurer, Robert Familant, had a total compensation package of approximately $10.6 million in 2015.

Progressive Credit Union had total assets of $646 million at the end of 2015.

According to Progressive Credit Union's 2015 Form 990, Familant had base compensation of $1,977,204 and other reportable compensation of $8,569,406, which included $7,940,990 from the disbursement of funds from two 457(F) deferred compensation plans and a payment of $628,416 to cover his 2014 tax liability associated with imputed income from the transfer of ownership of non-cash keyman life insurance.

In 2014, Familant's total compensation was $5.9 million with a base pay of $999,727 and bonus and incentive compensation of $4,778,416.

12 comments:

  1. Unbelievable.
    That board should be removed and this clown shouldn't be paid $10. He inherited the business from his father who inherited it from his grandfather...just like Kaufman at melrose.
    All they had to do is diversify the business. Instead, over half the assets are taxi loans worth pennies on the dollar.
    Congress should deal with NCUA for malfeasance allowing these concentration levels.
    Where's main stream media when you need them.
    Now we have to pay assessments.
    This is why NCUA wants to merge NCUSIF and corporate fund.
    To hide losses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Incredible! What is up with NCUA/NYSDSF??? Whatever happened to financial stewardship, the hallmark of credit unions? I would bet that this absurdity does not trickle down to the staff. Corporate greed, fostered by a Board that obviously doesn't do its job, is alive and well there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 2015 Year end the credit union is negative income at $19M. Year end 2016 the credit union is negative income at $57M. NCUA do you see a trend? Is this called pay for NON-performance? How do you say: salary clawback? Fired the CEO. Recall the damn board.

    ReplyDelete
  4. C'mon! It's unreasonable to expect the NCUA to buck its own precedent. Dave Marquis and Bob Fenner are both retired while we credit unions are funding their pensions. That's the insult they added to the injury of CCU assessments that ended our pensions for their in failures. The real stuff, Billions.

    RF, the NCUA has an open Board Seat, a bit south of NYC, but they're happy to let the rest of us pay for your taxi. Billions!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fenner granted the contingency lawsuits to his bff who then made hundreds of millions "settling" with Barclays (who got the assignment to do the NGN program) and the other dealers.
    Now NCUA wants some of the money back from the bff.
    Now jpm is suing NCUA bc they aren't going to pay twice on the same loss as stipulated in the contingency suit, which NCUA is trying to do.
    Now NCUA McW says the lawsuit fees were "excessive and troublesome" but defended them in a recent letter to a congressman.
    Now NCUA wants to combine the corporate fund with the NCUSIF for no other reason than they need to abscond of funds to deal with medallion losses and while they need to raise the reserve of the fund.
    This is a 60 Minutes story.
    A "rogue" regulator gone wild and for no reason other than to preserve their agency and independence...yet others in gvt, including the administration are saying we have too many regulators with too much overlap and no accountability.
    Hey Hensarling...wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's the story on McW?
    Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're right, this is a big story.
    This rogue regulator allows melrose to go up to 70+% of assets in one loan type. No other regulator would allow that.
    Why did they?
    What did progressive have over NCUA?
    Did they threaten them somehow?
    Weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it is a ny 'family'.
      In the taxi business.

      Delete
    2. McW was appointed chair by a guy from nyc.

      Delete
  8. It should be remembered that retirement vehicles represent 40 years of contributions and growth which I have witnessed being in the industry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is true and a fair point.
      Except in the case of a CEO that did NOTHING for 30 years, inherited the business from his father and then overloaded on one collateral.
      Clawback.
      Why should my members pay for his and NCUA malfeasance.

      Delete
  9. Robert Familant and the Chief Lending Officer, Rita Ryan (Robert's WIFE!) are milking the company for everything they can. From a business perspective, he's marginally capable and she's a farce. Together, they've only managed to run place into the ground. There's no doubt that the NCUA dropped the ball here.

    ReplyDelete

 

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.