Tuesday, August 25, 2015

McWatters Urges Revisiting MBL Lending History Exception

In the August 2015 NCUA Report, Board Member McWatters urges credit union officials to write the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) about revisiting the agency's stance regarding a credit union that has a history of primarily making member business loans (MBLs).

The NCUA Board currently has a proposal out for comment regarding its MBL regulations.

When Congress in 1998 put in place the statutory cap on member business loans, it provided an exception to credit unions that had a history of primarily making business loans.

NCUA's current position is that unless a credit union's history of making MBLs was already established “as of” the date of
the passage of the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998, a credit union could not take advantage of this exception.

However, McWatters believes that based upon "reasonable" legal analysis NCUA has the discretion to revisit this exception. Of course, it is his interpretation of reasonable.

McWatters wrote:

"I welcome this review of the MBL proposal and urge all interested credit union officials not to hold back in recommending changes to the rule that will improve MBL operations, consistent with Federal Credit Union Act and safety and soundness. This includes looking at the lending history exception."

It is troubling that McWatters introduced this idea of revisiting the lending history exception during the final days of the comment period on NCUA's proposed MBL rule, especially when this issue was not part of the original proposal.

This looks like the next avenue that NCUA will use to exclude more credit unions from the statutory MBL cap.

2 comments:

  1. Maybe that was "the intent." However, the Senators "bought and paid for by the ABA" forgot to insert a form of the verb "to be" before "chartered for the purpose of making member business loans" into the FCU Act. Since we know what the "meaning of is is," FCUs should be able to change their Bylaws to show they are chartered for that purpose and get out of the 12.25% asset cap.

    After all, what was the AT&T Family FCU case about? A single "s" that was not after "group."

    ReplyDelete
  2. another tax dodging credit union heard from. love the "mission" mantra when really its about not paying federal income tax.

    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.