Recent auctions indicate that New York City (NYC) taxi medallions are valued around $185,000 per medallion.
On January 11th, six NYC taxi medallions in possession of First Jersey Credit Union (Wayne, NJ) were auctioned for a high bid of $185,000 per medallion, according to the president of Maltz Auctions.
This price of $185,000 per medallion is in-line with the value of 46 NYC taxi medallions sold at auction in September 2017 for $186,000 each.
This coming week, more details on the value of NYC taxi medallions will be revealed as nine NYC taxi medallions in possession of Aspire Federal Credit Union (Clark, NJ) will be auctioned on January 16. The minimum opening bid is $150,000 per medallion.
These valuations indicate more pain awaits credit unions that financed taxi medallion loans and higher reserving for losses by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Keith - At valuation of $185k, what do you estimate is the overall decline in Medallion value since rise of ride-sharing? 75%, 80%?
ReplyDeleteSince peaking in 2014, NYC taxi medallion values are down approximately 82 percent.
DeleteAgain the NCUA, EIC (Examiner In Charge) & Capital Market Specialist (CMS) endorse & bless Melrose & Progressive all in on Medallion at over 100% share to loan ratio. The NCUA loves the NY Medallion MONOPOLY on taxi business loans. And why not, the NCUA has a monopoly on federal credit unions. Uber & Lyft derail the MONOPOLY. Medallions are worthless & credit unions holding them are failing. What is the NCUA to do? Buy the damn Medallions @ full value. The alternative, let them out at a 82% decline in value and assess credit unions to cover the loss. Expose the NCUA as a pseudo-regulator with a MONOPOLY on being stupid. Did the NCUA miss concentration risk here? Did the NCUA miss concentration risk at WesCrap, Members United, & USCentral Corporate Credit Union? See the trend? And where is the EIC? Find 'em in a new NCUA stepped up pay grade. Let's reward dumb behavior. Why did the NCUA & EIC permit Melrose and Progressive to exceed the MBL (Member Business Lending) cap? Because they were doing good? Now see where that got the credit union industry. And where is the condemnation from CUNA & NAFCU? Together they are in a circle jerk hoping for a happy ending. Together they are engaged in a exercise - call it: mental masturbation. Folks this is not going to end well. Budget 2018: NCUA Assessments.
ReplyDeleteMelrose, Progressive were both stupid to go all in at over 100% loan to share ratio on these Medallion Business loans. The NCUA was incompetent to endorse it, authorize it, and permit it. Now the NCUA plays surprised at the pathetic outcome. Surprised at the billion dollar losses. The NCUA worries about concentration risk on loans, and investments. Then when they see concentration risk on taxi medallion loans they are shocked and surprised. I am only shocked and surprised the NCUA can be so consistently stupid 100% of the time. The regulator is flat-lining. It is costing the credit union industry billions. The NCUA is stuck on stupid. Sadly they can't be fixed. They should be neutered.
ReplyDeleteWaah, Waah, Waah...blame yourselves for supporting lobbying groups with too much political influence. NCUA examiner's have little control when lobby groups able to influence regulation. For example, NCUA Regulations exempts credit union chartered for servicing business from MBL concentration limits (723.8(d). Corporate credit union crisis is a direct result of lobby groups influencing reg changes to expand legal investments from government backed mortgage securities to private mortgage investments. You want a strong regulator then get rid of the insider political influence.
ReplyDeleteThen don't grant the charters. And, revoke them if excess risk.
DeleteAs both regulator AND deposit insurer NCUA has all the standing it needs to prevent loss. The majority of credit unions are <$500MM and need NCUA to enforce restraint, not make excuses and pass us losses from gains kept by others.
Sorry Mr. Anonymous it’s not that simple. Board members are appointed based on political donations that support lobby group agendas, i.e. minimal regulator oversight.
ReplyDelete