Letter to the Editor: The Trades’ Dream Regulator a Minimalist
I read, with great interest, the Editor’s Column on the recently introduced legislation pertaining to the oversight review of financial regulators [CU Times, Feb. 8]. It is no surprise that the two major credit union trade organizations have jumped on the bandwagon of those supporting HR 3461, the Financial Institution Examination Fairness and Reform Act. It is clear that they believe another layer of government, more federal employees and another cost to the taxpayer is what is needed to correct a problem they perceive.
It is ironic that they believe it would be better to have someone monitor or regulate the job the regulator is tasked with. They apparently feel NCUA is being too tough, too demanding, and too stringent on the financial institutions they regulate in order to make sure that the deposits of 91 million Americans are safe, the share insurance fund is strong and the system is safe and sound.
Ironic because these are the same people that complained NCUA was lax in their examination, oversight and regulatory control of the corporate system that had failures and came close to bringing thousands of natural person credit unions into the same threat of failure.
Also strange is that the trades continue to maintain that despite the president’s call to consolidate agencies and perhaps reduce regulations, that NCUA should be preserved to continue the independence of credit unions from the banking regulators because credit unions are unique in their business and regulatory structure.
So what do they really want?
I venture to guess, a minimalist regulator. One that walks arm and arm with whatever the trade organization wants, one that doesn’t propose new regulations and eliminates those the trades don’t like, and one that follows rather than leads.
An interesting thought, a trade organization’s dream.
Sorry, guys, not on my watch.
Michael E. Fryzel