It's here. After months of discussion (even years if you thinkback to former NCUA Board member Yolanda Wheat's Community ActionPlan), the credit union industry is facing a data collectioninitiative by NCUA that is aimed at showing how credit unoins servethe underserved. Largely in response to the House Ways and MeansCommittee hearing last November -where Congress showed a pointedinterest in how credit unions serve those of modest means – NCUAinformed credit unions that it will begin collecting two types ofdata. The first will profile credit union membership to try and geta sense of who they are serving and how they are serving them. NCUAwill also be collecting credit union executive compensation data.There are two ways to look at this. The first is “about time.”NCUA, like the rest of the industry, has heard Congress loud andclear and is stepping up to try and document how credit unions areserving the underserved. This is the camp I fall into. It's timefor credit unions to produce proof. If successful, the obviousbenefit is it is a ready-made defense against bankers and theirclaims that credit unions aren't fulfilling their mission andshould be taxed. Credit unions would be able to squash that entireargument like a bug by having proof in hand. The other way to lookat it this is “uh oh.” Those feeling this way might be wary of theformula NCUA is using or worse may think it will expose creditunions for not doing enough to serve the underserved. To those Isay, tough luck. It's put up or shut up time. You have to beconfident in the industry and what it does for members. While notperfect, NCUA's collection will surely show some kind of proof ofservice to the underserved. CUNA and NAFCU viewed the news verydifferently. CUNA publicly supported it, saying it's clear thatCongress wants to see proof and it will work with NCUA to ensurethey are doing enough to get it. It was an overall positivereception from CUNA. NAFCU, on the other hand, wasn't happy. Itsaid that NCUA's data collection program may not be adequate toprovide a profile of credit union membership. It is concerned thatthe AIRES share and loan data, one collection method NCUA is using,isn't thorough enough to paint a complete picture. Why would NAFCUreact like this? I don't get it. Either NAFCU thinks the collectionsystem is woefully inadequate and won't show all that credit unionsdo for the underserved, or it's trying to move away from CUNA onthis issue. NAFCU over the years has taken pride in zigging whenCUNA is zagging on things it has a passion for. Bankruptcy reformcomes to mind. But either way, the rules of PR and politics say youmust publicly support this proposal, whether you think thecollection methods are perfect or not. It's time to show a unitedfront. Time to show Congress, the bankers, and everyone else thatcredit unions are ready to walk the walk and talk the talk. Don'tpublicly bring up collection method flaws right off the bat. It's awhiney approach that isn't necessary at this stage. Work with NCUAbehind the scenes. Let NCUA know what you're thinking – behindclosed doors. Besides, NCUA even couched its announcement by saying“it is likely NCUA will determine that additional or different datashould be collected from a larger number of credit unions to allowfor a valid statistical analysis..” There you go NAFCU, the door isobviously still open, don't rock the political boat by immediatelyopposing this effort. Not to mention, NCUA has given very vagueinformation on exactly what its examiners will be asking andcollecting. We don't even know the whole story yet. I know NAFCU'sheart is in the right place. They want to make sure credit unionsshine. They want Congress to get the complete picture of how creditunions serve the underserved. That's understandable, but you can'tfire on the first proposal by NCUA just because it isn't perfect.And sorry to say NAFCU, I don't think there is a silver bullet todata collection. Data isn't going to show how a credit union helpeda single parent get a low-rate car loan so they could drive to anew job. It won't show how a credit union was able to counsel amember to transfer their high-rate credit card balance to a homeequity loan so they have more money to pay down debt. These arecredit unions' individual stories and they are the ones who have totell them. This isn't a perfect scenario, but it is what it is. Ithink the industry has to embrace this collection effort and alongthe way suggest ways to improve it. As for the executivecompensation collection, that is a reaction to some high-profilecases of non-profit CEOs in other industries being paid millions. Ithink credit unions will be fine there, but the data will be greatfodder for credit union boards and executives who can now seeofficial data on just what executives are making. If Congress is soconcerned about excessive compensation of credit union execs, theyshould come down on the credit union directors and CEOs who convertto a bank charter so they can line their pockets with members'money. -

Comments? E-mail [email protected]