NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz discussed the possibilities of an 18-month examination cycle during a Nov. 20 roundtable discussion in New Hampshire.

Rep. Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) hosted the event, during which he queried Matz on the possibility of a pilot program in New Hampshire for low-risk credit unions to test the implementation of an 18-month examination cycle.

Matz held firm in her assertion that moving to an 18-month exam period at the same time many of the agency's regulatory relief proposals become effective would be an irresponsible approach. She provided a similar response a day earlier during the November NCUA board meeting.

Paul Gentile, president/CEO for the Cooperative Credit Union Association, told CU Times that the meeting lent to a “very collaborative environment.” He added Matz engaged with credit union leaders and took “an open minded approach” to the meeting.

In regard to Matz's discussion on the 18-month examination cycle, Gentile said, “One of the most compelling discussion points about 18 months was when the chairman mentioned how sometimes very well-run, low-risk credit unions can change direction quickly if a new CEO comes in. I think that's exactly the type of discussion we should be having. A change in leadership, a change in key data points, a change in product offerings are all things that could be the triggers for what type of exam cycle a credit union is on.”

Gentile added the exam cycle was consistently identified by his members as a tangible way to provide regulatory relief.

“A pilot would be a healthy approach and would show the system that (the) NCUA is serious about this issue and serious about reg relief on the exam front,” he said.

NCUA Public Affairs Specialist John Fairbanks told CU Times the agency “is not locked into an annual examination cycle, and, in future years, the board may consider moving to an 18-month cycle for credit unions that pose less risk to the Share Insurance Fund.”

The agency would need additional time to evaluate the impact of regulatory relief measures before the agency could have that conversation, according to Fairbanks. He added a pilot program would push back the consideration of a move to any kind of 18-month program because it would need to “organize, implement and evaluate the results of such a pilot program.”

Still, while Matz may be considering the 18-month cycle, it is not enough for some. Rep. Guinta said in a statement that he and others have pressed the chairman to “stay true to her agency's promised year of regulatory relief. So far, results have been meager.”

Instant Insights /

Matz Won't Budge on 18-Month Exam Cycle

Related Stories

Recommended For You