An article in the Sept. 23 issue caused dissention and some anger. I have gotten calls that my remarks suggest that I am against small credit unions and do not want to help them. My comments have been hard to understand. I wish to clarify my views on support for small credit unions.

I object that so much emphasis by trade associations and the NCUA is focused on one goal-saving small credit unions. I would rather that our focus be on making credit unions the preferred choice of consumers. If we do that, then all credit unions will prosper-large or small. The focus on small credit unions ignores the purpose of a credit union. The purpose is to meet the needs of members. The concern has been that we are losing our small credit unions, and, therefore, we need to do something. We are not losing small credit unions because they are small. When a credit union fails, it fails because it is not meeting the needs of its members.

There is, in fact, a perverse logic in focusing just on saving small credit unions. Asset size has a lot to do with the kind of resources available to meet member needs and to assure safety and soundness. We have lots of statistics and evidence that point to economies of scale that increase with asset size. We also know that internal control is a problem when you can't have segregation of duties. CU Times just reported two cases of embezzlement and said that even though both credit unions were small, it was not an indication that small credit unions have more embezzlement. But the article did note the problems with segregation of duties and other internal control issues. Large credit unions are not immune to any of the problems that small credit unions face, but they have the resources to manage those problems.