Credit unions are going to haveto trust the NCUA when it says it can see a light at the end of thecorporate stabilization tunnel, because it's not providing keydetails.

Not yet, anyway. Last November's $1.4 billion settlement withJPMorgan Chase is one example.

Every time we publish a story about the settlement, I receiveemails from readers asking why we're not reporting the net amountthe NCUA applied to the outstanding corporate stabilizationbill.

If you'll recall, Republican bulldog Rep. Darrell Issa ofCalifornia barked in the NCUA's direction in October 2012,challenging the agency's contingency agreement with law firmsoutsourced for the suits. A George W. Bush-era executive orderprohibits federal agencies from contingency agreements.

The NCUA argued that as conservator, it was taking on a roledifferent from that of federal agency and was therefore exempt fromthe order. The NCUA's inspector general agreed with that opinionlast year.

Issa was well on to another target by then and the issue dieddown until the record JPMorgan settlement, which was spearheaded bythe Department of Justice.

Sure, you could make some assumptions of how much the NCUAreceived net from the settlement, but it would be tough to do sobefore the next corporate resolution update in April, when we'llhave some numbers on legacy asset and NCUA's Guaranteed Notesperformance. The real estate market seems to be doing well, but howmuch that affects legacy assets, we don't yet know.

And the DOJ's involvement further complicates matters. TheNCUA's cut was just $1.4 billion of an overall $13 billionsettlement. There were other hands reaching into that cookie jar,not just the NCUA's victorious attorneys.

But credit unions should know, which is why we've been pressingthe NCUA to reveal the net number. The corporate bailout wasn't abailout – the nation's credit unions own it. That means fulldisclosure should be required.

But General Counsel Mike McKenna provided us with an intriguingstatement Feb. 13 when he said the NCUA can't reveal thesettlement's details because it would jeopardize negotiations withother Wall Street banks, whose suits are still active.

Normally, I'd file any excuse for not making details public inthe CYA bin, but that comment intrigued me.

“When you are playing high-stakes poker against the mostpowerful, deep-pocketed financial interests in the country – withbillions of dollars at stake – you don't show the cards in yourhand,” he said.

It was a reminder that the NCUA isn't dealing with a creditunion manager who defrauded an institution or a developer whobehind a phony business loan.

Suits are still pending against the likes of Barclays, CreditSuisse, Goldman Sachs and others. Even the U.S. government has longodds fighting those powerful forces. Just hearing the words GoldmanSachs sends a shiver down my spine. I can make car lot salesmanagers break into a sweat, but I wouldn't want to tangle withGoldman Sachs or its attorneys.

Speaking of the suits, I want to be clear I don't have any beefwith the NCUA's decision to sign contingency agreements withoutsourced law firms. Some settlement is better than none, I say.And it could be even worse than none: had the NCUA paid firmsworthy of taking on the world's most powerful banks an hourly fee,with no promise of ever collecting a dime, I would have joined theindustry teeth gnashing about throwing credit union money away.

I do think the NCUA's position on why Bush's executive orderdoesn't apply to them is a bit shady, but I think most creditunions are willing to take one for the team there and welcome therelief from corporate assessments.

Speaking of corporate assessments, another small, insignificantdetail the NCUA is unable to provide is whether credit unions willhave to pay future assessments or will one day receive a rebatebecause they paid too much.

Of course, the markets will determine the final tally, andnobody can say for certain how it will play out. I can appreciatethe NCUA's concern that even saying too much about projections hasthe potential to cause credit unions to make harmful planningassumptions, should those projections not bear out.

But still, who doesn't want to know at least the current statusand projected future of the biggest industry story since HR1151?

I know I do.

Credit Union Times Executive Editor HeatherAnderson ca